Here we go again: Q40/50

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whomever had the idea and whomever brought it to production were genius. It’s been built around an optimized balanced spec which is why it’s so special. Make the lens faster and you pay in size and weight. Make it wider and you would pay. Make it much longer and you would pay. The built in leaf shutter and the throat of the lens are as big as they can be without jumping to SL size. Stabilization is built into the lens. If it were IBIS the body would be much bigger. If you increase the sensor and electronics much more you will need better cooling and that means a bigger body and more weight. If you increase the speed of the PDAF you will need faster focus mechanisms which will weigh more.

The parallels exist in car design, particularly Formula 1 where you need to balance optimizing power to weight in the smallest sized package you can. That’s hard work. Look at the work of Colin Chapman or Gordon Murray or Adrian Newey. In the camera world probably the best example is the original Olympus OM1 and OM2 from the late 70’s and 80’s designed by Maitani. He fought to shrink the package down to a size not achieved before in SLR’s.

The more the original balance of factors changes the more unbalanced the design and execution will become and the less satisfying it will be to use and more expensive to buy. We can wish for “more” but more is rarely better.

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

26 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Whomever had the idea and whomever brought it to production were genius. It’s been built around an optimized balanced spec which is why it’s so special. Make the lens faster and you pay in size and weight. Make it wider and you would pay. Make it much longer and you would pay. The built in leaf shutter and the throat of the lens are as big as they can be without jumping to SL size. Stabilization is built into the lens. If it were IBIS the body would be much bigger. If you increase the sensor and electronics much more you will need better cooling and that means a bigger body and more weight. If you increase the speed of the PDAF you will need faster focus mechanisms which will weigh more.

The parallels exist in car design, particularly Formula 1 where you need to balance optimizing power to weight in the smallest sized package you can. That’s hard work. Look at the work of Colin Chapman or Gordon Murray or Adrian Newey. In the camera world probably the best example is the original Olympus OM1 and OM2 from the late 70’s and 80’s designed by Maitani. He fought to shrink the package down to a size not achieved before in SLR’s.

The more the original balance of factors changes the more unbalanced the design and execution will become and the less satisfying it will be to use and more expensive to buy. We can wish for “more” but more is rarely better.

If you look at the Summilux-M lenses and compare the 28 and 50, there's not a lot of difference, especially with hoods on both. They could also make a Q40 or Q50 in an f/1.9 maximum aperture. 

[Le Chef]

39 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

If you look at the Summilux-M lenses and compare the 28 and 50, there's not a lot of difference, especially with hoods on both. They could also make a Q40 or Q50 in an f/1.9 maximum aperture.

Then add the focusing mechanisms, the built in leaf shutter and OIS. With that you would have a different outcome in terms of size and weight.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

Then add the focusing mechanisms, the built in leaf shutter and OIS. With that you would have a different outcome in terms of size and weight.

The 50 Lux-M (close focus) is 23% lighter than the 28 Lux-M according to the B&H specs for both. The 50 Lux-M is also smaller. If the same design process is used to create a Q 50 1.7 lens, then the leaf shutter will need to be about the same size and the OIS will not have to stabilize as much optical weight. 

Lenses with equal apertures and similar optical goals get larger as you move from 50 to 35 then to 28. How are you making the case that a Q50 is going to be so much different from the Q28? Maybe it would be a bit longer, but a 50mm lens can take a shorter hood than the current Q28 to make up the difference.

[Dr. G]

14 hours ago, hdmesa said:

With that argument, you could travel back in time and convince them never to make the Q in the first place.

Edit: If you are a time traveler, please don't do that, though 😂

I can't find my Q3. @hdmesa I blame you - I think you've contributed to changing the time space continuum with your post.  

[MindsEye]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:31 PM, liggy said:

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.

Ditto. I was intrigued by the Q and Q2 but didn't want 28mm. When the Q3 came out, I pulled the trigger because the 35mm and 50mm crops on 60MP have more than enough information for sizable enlargements. And I still often use the 28mm. I think I probably use 35mm the most.

@Olaf_ZG I also loved my Contax G and 45mm lens. It was one of my two favorite compact camera combos (the other a Leitz Minolta CL with 40mm on it much of the time)

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With any of the Q cameras I can get 40/50. If I have a 40/50 Q camera I cannot get 28mm. Simple. The resolution of any of the Q cameras is far beyond good enough to get 40/50. Increasing a Q camera to 40/50 would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

[edelweiss]

6 hours ago, jdlaing said:

With any of the Q cameras I can get 40/50. If I have a 40/50 Q camera I cannot get 28mm. Simple. The resolution of any of the Q cameras is far beyond good enough to get 40/50. Increasing a Q camera to 40/50 would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

I read the original post and was thinking along these lines as well.  Isn't 60 MP way past larger than what most people need?  The Q3 has the handy crop frames incorporated if you want a larger focal length. 

I do like 50mm, I consider it my default/favorite, but a 28mm lens with a 60 MP sensor allows me to crop with reckless abandon when I need/want to. 

[jdlaing]

15 minutes ago, edelweiss said:

I read the original post and was thinking along these lines as well.  Isn't 60 MP way past larger than what most people need?  The Q3 has the handy crop frames incorporated if you want a larger focal length. 

I do like 50mm, I consider it my default/favorite, but a 28mm lens with a 60 MP sensor allows me to crop with reckless abandon when I need/want to. 

I don’t know about way past but definitely above what’s needed for a large percentage.

[hdmesa]

10 hours ago, jdlaing said:

With any of the Q cameras I can get 40/50. If I have a 40/50 Q camera I cannot get 28mm. Simple. The resolution of any of the Q cameras is far beyond good enough to get 40/50. Increasing a Q camera to 40/50 would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

The idea of a 40/50Q is not to just get 40/50, it's also to get 75/90 at the same quality the Q28 gets 35/50.

[Qwertynm]

And with a faster lens @40mm

[Simone_DF]

Moreover, if the vast majority of your shots are between 50mm and 90mm, buying a 28mm lens and crop is, frankly, daft. 

[Dr. G]

9 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The idea of a 40/50Q is not to just get 40/50, it's also to get 75/90 at the same quality the Q28 gets 35/50.

For me it would be more about getting the shallow depth of field with a relatively fast lens at 40/50mm.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Dr. G

[Olaf_ZG]

Not to light up this discussion, but in another thread @Pelu2010 just fueled my hope for a Q3.1 … 🤞

[Patrick NL]

I have no problem at all to go on a holiday with just the Q because it is a 28mm (more like a 26mm). If it would be 35mm or even 50mm, I would miss the wide angle part. For me, the choice for the 28mm is the best Leica could have chosen. If it would not be a 28mm, I would prefer a 24mm in stead of something longer.

[Olaf_ZG]

Just came across this thread. It’s fun to reread it…

[Pelu2010]

13 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Just came across this thread. It’s fun to reread it…

You Gangster ! 😎

[Simone_DF]

18 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Just came across this thread. It’s fun to reread it…

Meanwhile, the “marketing experts”…

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Likaleica]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:03 PM, 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?

Prescient

[Olaf_ZG]

Self portrait with the latest Q

At least I assume this is how ‘the die hard nah sayers” saw me…

 

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!