Leica Q4 - wish list

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/20/2024 at 11:14 AM, DannyF said:

Tri-focal length lens: 28-35-50. Yea, I know that this isn't going to happen, but one can dream. Otherwise, leave it alone - it ain't broke.

 

I would love to have a Q4 APO tri-elmarit (28/35/50 f/2.8) or a Q4 APO Vario-Elmarit (28-50 f/2.8) if Leica can make it under 850g.

[Qwertynm]

5 hours ago, beewee said:

I would love to have a Q4 APO tri-elmarit (28/35/50 f/2.8) or a Q4 APO Vario-Elmarit (28-50 f/2.8) if Leica can make it under 850g.

This exists already in Sonyland with A7RV or A7CR with 24-50/2.8. The concept of the Q is to crop. Doubtful a compact zoom lens Q is on the horizon

Edited August 25 by Qwertynm

[JNK100]

1 hour ago, Qwertynm said:

This exists already in Sonyland with A7RV or A7CR with 24-50/2.8. The concept of the Q is to crop. Doubtful a compact zoom lens Q is on the horizon

I agree - this would be extremely unlikely in my view.

[beewee]

Leica had the APS-C X Vario many years ago. I had one and the main downside was the poor autofocus and lack of EVF. It supported the same EVF as the M240 which was rather low resolution.

I think the user experience would be much improved if they reintroduced the concept with the same phase detect AF capable sensor and EVF as the Q3. It would make a fantastic little travel camera.

 What I truly want though is a modern interpretation of the Contax G2 but that’s neither Q, M, or SL unless Leica tries to do it in L-mount.

Edited August 26 by beewee

[Olaf_ZG]

3 hours ago, beewee said:

 

 What I truly want though is a modern interpretation of the Contax G2 but that’s neither Q, M, or SL unless Leica tries to do it in L-mount.

Would that be a M- evf?

[BokehBeauty]

As a spectacle wearer the EVF of my Q3 43 is what disappoints me every day, particularly of a Leica. On paper it’s great, but in reality worse than my Canon R5. I guess it is the eye point and the size of the OLED chip.

And second as for many, AF-C in portrait shooting.

Else I can’t think of much. Maybe support for focus stacking - should be a low hanging fruit.

Edited August 26 by BokehBeauty

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s hard to see how the Q can be greatly improved, it’s such a good product already and it’s been pushed to its limit by design from what I can see but some small changes would be welcome.

IBIS would be good but I do not think it is possible as the sensor is pretty much built into the lens.

I would like to have a sharper 28mm across the frame but without compromising the f1.7. Again, not sure this is possible without increasing the size.

Faster AF on each new iteration is a given for any digital camera so we will definitely get this.

A more robust sensor. Too much colour noise when lifting shadows at higher ISO compared to the M11/SL3. 

I’d like to see an improvement to the thumb dial. I found it too stiff to move, especially when wearing gloves. 

A higher rating for weather sealing. Be good to have it on par with the SL series. This is one of the key strengths of the Q for me, so even more reassurance would be great.

A less glossy finish, something more in line with the M11. It’s harder wearing and does not get shiny spots as easily.

Internal memory alongside a card slot. 

 

 

[F-train]

I would like all the previous items, but in a slightly smaller camera with less buttons and less menu’s.

(Somebody must understand the slight sarcasm… 😉)

[beewee]

On 8/25/2025 at 10:44 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

Would that be a M- evf?

Not really in that an M EVF would not have AF and communication for aperture information.

One thing that’s really annoying me is the lack of accurate aperture information makes it a giant pain to do panoramic photo stitching in Lightroom. Both the SL and M tries to estimate aperture by comparing the brightness measured from a tiny little window (next to the hot-shoe and shutter speed dial on M, and on the left below the ‘third’ dial on the SL3) and whatever is captured through the lens via the sensor but it’s very unreliable. This is one reason where I find shooting with M-glass a deal breaker if I want to do any form of panoramic stitching. There are ways around it such as batch processing each photo, exporting as TIFF, then reimporting and merging but the workflow is terrible.

I really like the form factor of the Q and just want something similar in size without having to carry camera to get more than one focal length.

I’d even be willing to upgrade if Leica is able to ‘modernize’ the M-mount to add some electronic contacts that communicates aperture data via some internal encoders on a next generation of M glass. Similar to how ROM versions of the R-mount lenses can communicate aperture information.

[40mm f/2]

What about a L mount version, like a Panasonic S9 but with Q design and handling  including  the EVF  but with focus bracketing like Panasonic or even to some extend Sigma cameras to use macro lenses. The SL cameras are too bulky for me!

[beewee]

I wouldn’t be opposed to a Q-sized L-mount camera with built-in EVF but the body is only one part of the contributor to the size of the kit. My biggest gripe right now with the SL system is that almost all the high performing L-mount lenses are heavy.

The APO SL primes are not extremely heavy but they are heavy enough that I don’t think I’d carry more than one APO SL prime if I’m going to cover a lot of distance on foot. Whereas with the M-mount APO primes weighing less than half the weight and being quite compact, I’d be more than happy to carry 3-4 M primes. My ideal M kit is a 24 Elmar, 35 Lux pre-FLE or APO, 50 APO, 90 Elmarit, and depending on the situation, I can easily pair it down to a 2-3 lens setup like a 24+50, 24+35+90, or 24+50+90. But none of this works when I want to do panoramic stitching so I’m considering maybe a 28-70 SL + maybe 1-2 M primes (e.g. 24+35 or 24+50) as a lightweight setup. That said, even this set of lenses will be close to 1kg which is similar to the 24-90 SL.

Edited August 28 by beewee

[Kyuss]

I absolutely love my Q3 43, but there is one thing that drives me mad every single day anew, not having a joystick. those 4 arrows that dont even go diagonal are such a pain to use.

Must have for the Q4: 

- Joystick!

- better autofocus, even my X100V had way better autofocus, for a camera at that price point and with the Leica quality, the AF is pathetic and and insult to anyone who ever used any mirrorless camera in the past 5 years or so.

Nice to have

- internal storage in addition to a card slot

- a brighter lens, like a 43 1,4 or 1,7 at least

- baked in leica looks in the DNG files, like fuji does with their film simulations baked in the raw files, thats such a cool feature

- letting us use the leica looks in capture one as presets

- a redesigned wireless charging station where you have access to both the battery and the card without having to remove the grip. what a terrible product design fail

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Kyuss said:

I absolutely love my Q3 43, but there is one thing that drives me mad every single day anew, not having a joystick. those 4 arrows that dont even go diagonal are such a pain to use.

Must have for the Q4: 

- Joystick!

- better autofocus, even my X100V had way better autofocus, for a camera at that price point and with the Leica quality, the AF is pathetic and and insult to anyone who ever used any mirrorless camera in the past 5 years or so.

Nice to have

- internal storage in addition to a card slot

- a brighter lens, like a 43 1,4 or 1,7 at least

- baked in leica looks in the DNG files, like fuji does with their film simulations baked in the raw files, thats such a cool feature

- letting us use the leica looks in capture one as presets

- a redesigned wireless charging station where you have access to both the battery and the card without having to remove the grip. what a terrible product design fail

Fuji does not have film simulations baked in the raw files. 

[ckern]

2 hours ago, Kyuss said:

. . . baked in leica looks in the DNG files, like fuji does with their film simulations baked in the raw files, thats such a cool feature

Actually, Fuji film simulations are not available in raw captures from the company’s cameras.  A Fujifilm raw file is really a raw file: it just contains the RGB values recorded by the camera sensor and all other colors need to be interpolated during demosaicing.   This can be performed in-camera, after which a film simulation can be applied to the processed file, but the result is not a raw file.  (I.e., it has been demosaiced.)  Fujifilm reportedly worked with Adobe to make “authentic” film simulations available in Lightroom—and my experience is that when you apply these to raw files, you do wind up with colors that plausibly mimic the company’s film stocks (at least the ones I have used).  The film simulation is just another entry in the Lightroom database, so the process is reversible or subsequently modifiable; the raw file is never touched.

[Kyuss]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb ckern:

Actually, Fuji film simulations are not available in raw captures from the company’s cameras.  A Fujifilm raw file is really a raw file: it just contains the RGB values recorded by the camera sensor and all other colors need to be interpolated during demosaicing.   This can be performed in-camera, after which a film simulation can be applied to the processed file, but the result is not a raw file.  (I.e., it has been demosaiced.)  Fujifilm reportedly worked with Adobe to make “authentic” film simulations available in Lightroom—and my experience is that when you apply these to raw files, you do wind up with colors that plausibly mimic the company’s film stocks (at least the ones I have used).  The film simulation is just another entry in the Lightroom database, so the process is reversible or subsequently modifiable; the raw file is never touched.

I don't use Lightroom any more so I cant speak about it, but in C1, when I edit a RAW from the Fuji, I can simply select the different film simulations via the curves menue, and no matter how they did it, being able to work with RAWs AND having the option to apply the film simulations (not only on jpgs in camera) is the best of both worlds and an amazing feature to have. 

And again, yes, I would love to have that feature on my Leica too.

Is it game breaking? No, but it's one of those QOL features you get used to and that you really miss once you had it. Especially after a while you get a sense for what picture could work with what kind of film simulation.

And the Fuji Ones are, while limited in number, really really good. During covid I spent a LOT of time testing all kinds of different film simulation packs and preset bundles trying to emulate film looks and I still miss the ease of use and quality of the Fuji Ones. 

And Leica already has a lot of quite interesting "Leica Looks" why not let us use them with their DNGs in C1?!

Edited August 30 by Kyuss

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Kyuss said:

I don't use Lightroom any more so I cant speak about it, but in C1, when I edit a RAW from the Fuji, I can simply select the different film simulations via the curves menue, and no matter how they did it, being able to work with RAWs AND having the option to apply the film simulations (not only on jpgs in camera) is the best of both worlds and an amazing feature to have. 

And again, yes, I would love to have that feature on my Leica too.

Is it game breaking? No, but it's one of those QOL features you get used to and that you really miss once you had it. Especially after a while you get a sense for what picture could work with what kind of film simulation.

And the Fuji Ones are, while limited in number, really really good. During covid I spent a LOT of time testing all kinds of different film simulation packs and preset bundles trying to emulate film looks and I still miss the ease of use and quality of the Fuji Ones. 

And Leica already has a lot of quite interesting "Leica Looks" why not let us use them with their DNGs in C1?!

To use Leica Looks in C1 and Adobe, Leica and C1/Adobe must collaborate to add the appropriate profiles/presets in their post-processors.

[Kyuss]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

To use Leica Looks in C1 and Adobe, Leica and C1/Adobe must collaborate to add the appropriate profiles/presets in their post-processors.

Would be awesome if the would.

[steve edmunds]

I have come to realise i am totally out of step with most Leica/camera people and that the Q2 is the last Q to appeal to me and the M262 the last M both of which i own.

I find these what do we want in the Q4 0r M12 threads depressing frankly.

[RQ44]

I am still in a very lustful relationship with my Q3 28, who cares about a Q4. Seriously, can we just let a model linger on for a few years before demanding a new edition. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[SrMi]

33 minutes ago, RQ44 said:

I am still in a very lustful relationship with my Q3 28, who cares about a Q4. Seriously, can we just let a model linger on for a few years before demanding a new edition. 

We need to keep the forum alive 🤣. 

From my side, I do not care about threads that are of no interest to me.