Jump to content

Here we go again: Q40/50

Olaf_ZG

By Olaf_ZG
in Leica Q3 / Leica Q2 / Leica Q

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

hdmesa
hdmesa

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.

Le Chef
Le Chef

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 we

Olaf_ZG
Olaf_ZG

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

Posted Images

Le Chef

Le Chef

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

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

The risk of cannibalization would be higher. In addition once I have a Q I don't buy additional lenses: it's a one and done purchase. With an M or SL I almost invariably will buy more lenses which will gain Leica more profit and also ties me into a form of loyalty. 

Edited by Le Chef
Link to post
Share on other sites
Olaf_ZG

Olaf_ZG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I still don't see a business argument despite expressions of personal preference. Would you buy a Q40/45/50 if it cost another $1,500 more than the Q3?

Honestly, not sure, as I put my mind on 6k, and I am not sure why the camera should be more expensive, as most of R&D has earned already with the Q line.

500 more, yes.

The Q offers sth with both M/SL don’t offer, it is great, but due to 28mm not to me.

At current I am sincerely considering a g1 plus 45 planar (back to film, i know) or a xpro3 with 35mm. Both will provide great pictures for daily life, the intent of Q. Both are significant cheaper as well, but happily for me this is not the main decision point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Olaf_ZG

Olaf_ZG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

The risk of cannibalization would be higher. In addition once I have a Q I don't buy additional lenses: it's a one and done purchase. With an M or SL I almost invariably will buy more lenses which will gain Leica more profit and also ties me into a form of loyalty. 

Wouldn’t this be the same for the regular Q?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Simone_DF

Simone_DF

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

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.

Here we go again. Total different use cases. The M is a manual rangefinder. No autofocus, Ibis or EVF. Honestly the only things the M and Q have in common is the sensor. We keep stressing the M should not be touched, that it’s unique, orange and apples compared to other mirrorless, that it slows you down, it doesn’t have all the tricks of modern digital cameras etc etc yet now it’d be made redundant by a Q50.
in short, you’re clutching at straws, basically. 

The SL is a different concept altogether. Big, bulky, heavy as fuck, and can mount different lenses. Totally different cameras to Qs.

The business case is people needing a camera with a longer focal length. A Q50 would cover 50-90mm easily. 
The business case is also people buying Canon and Nikon as a second camera instead of a SL2 to cover the 50-90 range. Clearly there’s something wrong there if people buy another brand instead of yours. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Simone_DF

Simone_DF

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

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

What is the point if buying a 6000€ camera if the vast majority of your photos are cropped? Get a camera with your most used focal length, not digital gimmicks made by the marketing department 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Simone_DF

Simone_DF

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I still don't see a business argument despite expressions of personal preference. Would you buy a Q40/45/50 if it cost another $1,500 more than the Q3?

No. But I wouldn’t buy a M11 not even for 1500€ total price, nor a SL3 + Summilux 50 for the same price if weight doesn’t go down. And I can’t see Leica releasing a Summilux II anytime soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Le Chef

Le Chef

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Wouldn’t this be the same for the regular Q?

That depends if the Q is my only camera. Would I add a Q35/50 or would it replace the Q/Q2/Q3? If it's a replacement then it impacts Leica's development costs for the new lens unless you charge a significant premium to cover that cost. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Le Chef

Le Chef

Posted
Posted
Just now, Simone_DF said:

As a second camera? How many use the Q3 as their sole camera? Do YOU have proof of that?

So what's their other camera? Did the Q replace an existing camera or did they add it to other cameras? You simply don't know. Why not ask this forum that question and see how they respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Olaf_ZG

Olaf_ZG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Le Chef said:

So what's their other camera? Did the Q replace an existing camera or did they add it to other cameras? You simply don't know. Why not ask this forum that question and see how they respond?

That was my original question? How many would like to buy one, but you wanted to push your opinion that it is not viable…

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Le Chef

Le Chef

Posted
Posted
Just now, Olaf_ZG said:

The fact that nobody knows, is , how many people don’t bought a q3/2/1 cause it is only 28mm? 
how much sales did Leica lost?

 

I'm sure if Leica lost sales they would a) Know how many sales b) Would have calculated the development cost of a Q35/45/50 and source of sales c) Would have put it into production a while ago if it was viable. The Q went into production in 2016, so 7 years worth of data is more than enough to have developed this camera and put it into production by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knorp

Knorp

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Le Chef said:

You have proof of that? If that's the case why did they buy a Q/Q2/Q3?

I think because people just like the Q(28)'s concept (so do i), but that's not to say they (I) don't like a Q(40) better.

Had I had the choice I would have opted for a 40mm ... 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
Olaf_ZG

Olaf_ZG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

In which case Leica would have lost a Q28 sale and gained nothing unless all Q's were 40mm.

And they lost my sales on both the 28 and 40… how many did they lost.

Leica did not had a survey (at least as I know off, and they know me as I am here and a registered user, so they could).

They are assuming. Like you, like me.

Based on availability issues, I assume the Q is the biggest selling camera for Leica. I also assume they could get sales figures from Ricoh, so a projection could be made if the want.

May be they don’t want. May be they assume that all Leica owners are brand loyal till they die. May be they are, may be not.

All I know that I want a EDC (as Leica is promoting its Q) with 40/50mm. I prefer Leica, but will be happy with either contax/zeiss or fuji. How many Leica owners have a x100 ?

I really enjoy my SL and M, but they are not my EDC. I want another camera for this with 40/50mm. Ricoh isn’t for me (tried it), so which brand to take, and which brand to switch too?

The latter is a very expensive cost, often ignored. Lost customers are hard to win back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...