Here we go again: Q40/50

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My most beloved 135mm camera - before I stepped into Leica - was the contax G1 with its planar 45mm. Great little lens, and I guess it was used 80% of all images taken with that camera. Shot about one hundred weddings with it, lovely results.

I guess, this made me feel that 40/50 is my focus length. I tried both the Q and the Q2, but sold them, as 28mm is too wide. Not always, but for sure I won’t do 80% with it. Instead I bought the 28mm summaron which is a great little lens for the M, in case I want to have this wider view.

On the SL forum, there was a link to a chinese site where Leica registered a new camera. Rumors go, it is the new SL3. But then, it has “only” 60mp which is maybe not such a step up from the SL2. So I hope that rumors are wrong, and that Leica registered another Q3.

A Q3 with about 45mm lens.

I know, many say it will not happen, many are against it (don’t know why), but I do really hope so. Won’t buy a 28mm Q anymore, but a tighter version I would buy.

Earlier this year, a member with quite some correct inside info, told me it would happen. Now, with basically the 28mm delivered to all potential buyers, Xmas around the corner, it would be nice if Santa brings an upgraded Q.

But then, as I don’t like Xmas, Santa probably doesn’t like me.

Anyone else wants a Q 40/50?

[Le Chef]

It’s the SL3. The Q3 was “only” a small step up from 47MP to 60MP. It would mean all 3 FF Leica cameras had a 60MP sensor.

[Knorp]

I'd very much like a fast 40mm ...  🙃

[mhasman]

I'd like to see Q with 35mm lens

[Qwertynm]

Wishful thinking. Q3 orders have been fulfilled? Don’t think so. Would I like one? Maybe. 

don‘t get me wrong, I love 40mm. Maybe after seeing Ricohs success with the Gr3x Leica might get tempted. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. Pretty sure the SL3 will get updated first, then comes the Q3M and after that it’s QL3 time (if ever).

If you want a normal FL40 in a small Q3 like package get the Sony A7Cr with either 40/2.5 or 50/2.5

[FrozenInTime]

The TL2 is superb with the 28mm Summicron M; use with the 18 TL for a compact pairing.

The GR III and IIIx work well together, so does the X100V with optional WCL and TCL.

... as, just like the original CL, would a 28 and 40mm Q combination 🙂

A Q3 with a pancake 40mm would have a market for sure.

[liggy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I initially avoided the Qs because of the 28mm focal.  If it had been 35 from the start I would have grabbed one right away.The Reporter came along and I thought it was so cool that in spite of the 28mm focal length I needed that camera my life.

Have now come to appreciate it for what it is and have other systems with great primes in other focal lengths anyway.  

I'd be willing to be a Qx with a 35 or 40mm lens would be an instant hit.

[Simone_DF]

13 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

many are against it (don’t know why),

Their philosophy is basically "you can't have what I don't need or want, because I say so, even if it doesn't make any sense".

13 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

it would be nice if Santa brings an upgraded Q.

Anyone else wants a Q 40/50?

Unlikely to come before mid or late 2024. Leica would understandably want to squeeze as many sales as they can with the 28mm version before churning out another model.

That, and the SL3 has a higher priority right now. 

[Le Chef]

I would love to know the business case for a Q40 or Q50. Where are the sales going to come from? What do these buyers currently own and why would they buy a Q40 or Q50? Do those sales support or damage Leica’s overall profitability? Will those additional sales cover the cost of development and cost of SKUs of a Q40 or Q50 in the supply chain?

Edited November 28, 2023 by Le Chef

[Dr. G]

I usually carry my Q3, SL2-S, 50mm APO Summicron-SL and 75mm APO Summicron SL.  If I could just carry two q bodies, one with a 28 and one with something close to 45mm I would be very happy.  That, to me, is the perfect travel and daily carry.

I know I can crop the Q3 to 50mm, but I want to be able to render images with a more shallow depth of field around that focal length.

 

 

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

I would love to know the business case for a Q40 or Q50. Where are the sales going to come from? What do these buyers currently own and why would they buy a Q40 or Q50? Do those sales support or damage Leica’s overall profitability? Will those additional sales cover the cost of development and cost of SKUs of a Q40 or Q50 in the supply chain?

My concern as well.

Everyone has their idea of the perfect camera...for them.

Pretty sure Leica has a pretty knowledgeable team of market analysts figuring out what will sell in quantities that justify production. 

[JNK100]

If Leica was going to bring out a Q with a different focal length, they would probably done so by now.

Every camera is a compromise and will not be 100% perfect for everyone.

 

The cost of development would be unlikely to make.commercial sense.

Leica is a business and needs to be profitable.

 

28mm is fine for what the Q3 is in my view.

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, Le Chef said:

I would love to know the business case for a Q40 or Q50. Where are the sales going to come from? What do these buyers currently own and why would they buy a Q40 or Q50? Do those sales support or damage Leica’s overall profitability? Will those additional sales cover the cost of development and cost of SKUs of a Q40 or Q50 in the supply chain?

I guess we should ask Ricoh.

sales would come from people like me…

[luetz]

22 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

My most beloved 135mm camera - before I stepped into Leica - was the contax G1 with its planar 45mm. Great little lens, and I guess it was used 80% of all images taken with that camera. Shot about one hundred weddings with it, lovely results.

I guess, this made me feel that 40/50 is my focus length. I tried both the Q and the Q2, but sold them, as 28mm is too wide. Not always, but for sure I won’t do 80% with it. Instead I bought the 28mm summaron which is a great little lens for the M, in case I want to have this wider view.

On the SL forum, there was a link to a chinese site where Leica registered a new camera. Rumors go, it is the new SL3. But then, it has “only” 60mp which is maybe not such a step up from the SL2. So I hope that rumors are wrong, and that Leica registered another Q3.

A Q3 with about 45mm lens.

I know, many say it will not happen, many are against it (don’t know why), but I do really hope so. Won’t buy a 28mm Q anymore, but a tighter version I would buy.

Earlier this year, a member with quite some correct inside info, told me it would happen. Now, with basically the 28mm delivered to all potential buyers, Xmas around the corner, it would be nice if Santa brings an upgraded Q.

But then, as I don’t like Xmas, Santa probably doesn’t like me.

Anyone else wants a Q 40/50?

NO!

[Le Chef]

“I guess we should ask Ricoh”

Ricoh’s price point is 1/6th of the Q3. That means they have significant greater volume opportunity which means they can more easily amortize the development costs on a unit by unit basis.

Leica doesn’t have the luxury of that kind of volume so has to source development costs out of margin. That means higher sales price and lower guarantees of sales and greater risk when you add in supplementary models like a Q40 or Q50.

The questions asked before become more critical when you know that. Source of new sales has to be robust and cannot cannibalize higher margin Leica models. If I can get a Q50 for let’s say $7,500 why would I buy an SL2 + 50mm lens or an M11 with 50mm Summilux lens? That’s how you kill your brand’s reputation and profitability. And that’s a suicide mission.

[Qwertynm]

vor 56 Minuten schrieb Le Chef:

The questions asked before become more critical when you know that. Source of new sales has to be robust and cannot cannibalize higher margin Leica models. If I can get a Q50 for let’s say $7,500 why would I buy an SL2 + 50mm lens or an M11 with 50mm Summilux lens? That’s how you kill your brand’s reputation and profitability. And that’s a suicide mission.

I disagree with that argument. You can buy a SL2 with a 28mm or a M with a 28, so this falls apart. The Q is the sum of its parts. It’s small, it‘s relatively light weight. It has a fast aperture lens, the Q2 and Q3 have a high res sensor, so you can crop in, it‘s weathersealed. It‘s got AF, it’s got a macro mode and so on and so forth.

Would people be willing to spend the same amount of money on a QL40 as they are on a Q3. Would a QL40 bring enough versatility despite its narrower FoV.

I can already shoot 40 or 50mm with the Q3 with a DoF aequivalent to f/2.8 or f/3.2. So what do I gain from having a fast 40 or 50 lens in a fixed lens camera? Only slightly blurrier backgrounds. And even that can be adressed in post. 

Although I really do like the 40mm FoV I would be thinking long and hard to trade my Q3 for a QL as the Q3 with its wide angle lens and crop function is just so versatile. I would absolutely love Leica to introduce one but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. 

[Olaf_ZG]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

“I guess we should ask Ricoh”

Ricoh’s price point is 1/6th of the Q3. That means they have significant greater volume opportunity which means they can more easily amortize the development costs on a unit by unit basis.

Leica doesn’t have the luxury of that kind of volume so has to source development costs out of margin. That means higher sales price and lower guarantees of sales and greater risk when you add in supplementary models like a Q40 or Q50.

The questions asked before become more critical when you know that. Source of new sales has to be robust and cannot cannibalize higher margin Leica models. If I can get a Q50 for let’s say $7,500 why would I buy an SL2 + 50mm lens or an M11 with 50mm Summilux lens? That’s how you kill your brand’s reputation and profitability. And that’s a suicide mission.

The question was the same for the regular Q.

The Q wins over the SL due to portability, it wins over the M due to EVF/AF. The Q is an add on.

To me, due to 28mm it is not worth it. A 40/50 would be. I guess I am not alone. Which lens is sold more? A summilux 28 or 50? It might give an estimation…

[Kim Dahl]

3 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I usually carry my Q3, SL2-S, 50mm APO Summicron-SL and 75mm APO Summicron SL.  If I could just carry two q bodies, one with a 28 and one with something close to 45mm I would be very happy.  That, to me, is the perfect travel and daily carry.

 

 

I agree. I use the Q3 and Canon for the tele stuff. It would be fantastic with a Leica q 45. It will be easier to get colors to match if it is the same brand.

[Olaf_ZG]

Regarding ROI, we can ask the same for the SL3: how many people will upgrade if it only offers 60mp? 
 

I believe the Q is more selling than a SL, so the risk would be lower.

But then, I am not a business analyst at Leica and have no insight in their figures.

 I am just stating my wishes and would buy a q40/50, will pass on the regular q3 and most probably also on the SL3. 

Happily we live in great times with plenty of choices, so no one is bound to one brand.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[M11 for me]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Kim Dahl:

I agree. I use the Q3 and Canon for the tele stuff. It would be fantastic with a Leica q 45. It will be easier to get colors to match if it is the same brand.

Did we not say a few posts above that you can easily crop with the Q 28mm?