Jump to content

Here we go again: Q40/50


Olaf_ZG

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Sadly, there is no other real option, as there is no FF compact with 40/50mm.

Perhaps you should have a look at the Sony A7CII or A7RCII paired with the excellent Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8. The lens is bigger than the Q, but very light and focuses fast. It's the only lens I miss from my Sony days. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

Okay…how about the Canon 5ds R.  A camera based on the very successful Canon 5D MkIV with a bigger sensor that some people were ‘clamouring’ for.  So Canon made it…took a bath on it and we cleared out what stock we had at below cost.  Guaranteed Cannon has more money to throw at things than Leica!

Again…they have market analysts who are likely far better you and I as to what to throw money at.

The Canon 5DSR was plagued by bad marketing and poor quality of life improvements over the predecessors. People complained about the lack of Ibis on a 50mp camera, that it was producing unsharp images, and the lack of a proper AA filter. If you go and make a search on the internet, you'll find plenty of complains like this. Moreover, the 5DS was preferred over the 5DSR because of better noise handling. That, and the notorious Canon ability to shot itself in the foot with crippled hardware, is what killed the 5DSR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

The Canon 5DSR was plagued by bad marketing and poor quality of life improvements over the predecessors. People complained about the lack of Ibis on a 50mp camera, that it was producing unsharp images, and the lack of a proper AA filter. If you go and make a search on the internet, you'll find plenty of complains like this. Moreover, the 5DS was preferred over the 5DSR because of better noise handling. That, and the notorious Canon ability to shot itself in the foot with crippled hardware, is what killed the 5DSR.

Just like all the complaints about the Q3??

My point is that camera companies do a lot of work before bringing out a new camera…sometimes they miss.

Guaranteed (because I deal with Leica USA business wise) that the have considered a Q with a different lens…and they don’t consider it a slam dunk at this time.

A dozen people on a forum isn’t enough at this point for them to see otherwise.

I’ll leave the thread now as there is no convincing some that they no better than what in truth is a very successful company who might actually know what they are doing.

As in many fields, armchair quarterbacking is real easy.

Edited by bobtodrick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope is that Leica will still consider a Q with a longer lens. I tried the Q2 and figured, ok, I will just crop. I know what focal lengths I like and knew that I prefer a longer lens, but I figured I would use it as a native wide for my SL2 and for general portable use I would crop in. In practice I rarely did. What I did not anticipate was how awkward it was to work in that way. Since the VF does not let you see the entire scene in the crop modes, the more you crop, the more difficult it is to compose and use the camera. And of course resolution decreases dramatically the more you punch in, so that you are down below an APS camera before long. By the time you are 40mm, you are similar or slightly worse in image quality to a GRIIIx, which as mentioned, costs a tiny fraction of the Q and also weighs and takes up a tiny fraction of the space as well. If I could go back in time and never buy the Q, I would do so. But too late...Leica has my money. I think they count on that too...in many cases the people asking for a Q with a longer lens wound up buying the Q anyway, even if they subsequently sold it unhappily. Meanwhile, my most used camera these days is probably the GRIIIx and I am a professional photographer with a full Leica kit! I don't use it much for work, but I do use it every day as a pocket camera.

As for why Leica has not made one? Well, I think that has less to do with how many they would sell, than how much other stuff they have going on. I think if they made a Q3 with a longer lens, that would take up time and resources from their M, SL and S lines where people are screaming for updates there too. The 21mm APO Summicron took five years for them to get out the door... I also think this is a value issue. The Q series is a better value purchase, which means it is better for customers and worse for Leica. You basically get a Leica lens with a body thrown in. The M lenses and bodies are now eye-wateringly over priced, the SL series a bit more tolerable but still daunting, the S of course has been dead in the water for years, but when it was around was the most expensive of all, barring special editions and M APO summicrons and Nocti lenses. I do think that Leica could put out a Q with a longer lens and make money from it, but they have probably figured that they could make MORE money by putting out the stuff with a higher profit margin. In the end, I have no clue. But I do agree with Olaf that it would be superb to have access to a Q with a 40 or 50mm lens. I also think there is a very long tradition of exactly this kind of pairing. Most of the compacts in the 80s/90s had a wide and standard version, as did a bunch of Fuji's medium format cameras, Plaubel Makinas, Nikon point and shoots, and so on. All that said, I cannot imagine that changing the lens would be all that daunting a design challenge either...essentially everything else in the camera stays the same.

Edited by Stuart Richardson
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

You make the point about why Leica should not be swayed by a handful of owners into making poor decisions.

Why? The 5DSR was a crippled camera plagued with issues. Remember, you can swap a 5DMKIV with a 5DSR and use the same lenses, but you cannot do the same with a 28mm Q and a 50mm Q. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

All that said, I cannot imagine that changing the lens would be all that daunting a design challenge either...essentially everything else in the camera stays the same.

Yes, and eventually they’ll have to change the lens anyway, even just to improve the AF motors, which were not designed with PDAF in mind

Edited by Simone_DF
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Can you please explain how a slow manual rangefinder with no ibis or evf is the same as an autofocus EDC camera? They have ZERO in common. 

They have very little in common: but you should read posts on the M, SL, Q forums about people asking “Should I get a “X” or a Q/Q2/Q3?” They are not looking at this as a straight comparison but the Q as an alternative. 

As said a number of times already (and I can’t be bothered to keep repeating a simple argument over and over) if someone buys a Q instead of a Leica M or SL then Leica potentially loses margin and future sales from additional lenses. 

If on the other hand Leica sells one Q as an additional camera regardless of other cameras owned then they win. If the Q family is the simple “one size fits all” EDC then complicating that offering with Q35/40/50 dilutes that positioning and purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for most enthusiasts it‘s not X or Q, it‘s X and Q. So whether it’s a Q28 or Q40 doesn’t really matter from Leicas viewpoint. I‘m sure they have good margins across the product lines and therefore not much to loose. I wouldn’t be surprised seeing Q2 users pick up a Q40 in a heartbeat. The 3 not really bringing that much more to the table for Q2 owners but a longer lens might convince people already familiar with the Q as tried concept. Who knows. Speculating is fun after all

Edited by Qwertynm
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

As said a number of times already (and I can’t be bothered to keep repeating a simple argument over and over) if someone buys a Q instead of a Leica M or SL then Leica potentially loses margin and future sales from additional lenses. 

The question to ask is why they prefer a Q instead of a M (my best guess? autofocus) or a SL (size & weight). Given these 3 cameras are very far away from each other, perhaps their original purchase doesn't fit with the expectation or workflow.

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

If on the other hand Leica sells one Q as an additional camera regardless of other cameras owned then they win.

Thanks for making my point, which is that plenty of people have a Q28mm as an additional camera alongside a different camera (Sony/Nikon/Canon). Aiming at that target area with a Q50 would be a good way to sell them both a Q28 and a Q50. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

I think for most enthusiasts it‘s not X or Q, it‘s X and Q. So whether it’s a Q28 or Q40 doesn’t really matter from Leicas viewpoint. I‘m sure they have good margins across the product lines and therefore not much to loose. I wouldn’t be surprised seeing Q2 users pick up a Q40 in a heartbeat. The 3 not really bringing that much more to the table for Q2 owners but a longer lens might convince people already familiar with the Q as tried concept. Who knows. Speculating is fun after all

Yes, there's that too. I already know I most likely won't buy a SL3 because I prefer the low light capabilities of the SL2-S and anyway the slow readout of the 60mp sensor is a dealbreaker for me. I'd happily use that money to buy a Q50 as a second camera for when I don't want to lug around the SL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bill_murray said:

@Olaf_ZG  A Hasselblad X1DII or X2D with an XCD 55v lens (has a 43mm equiv) would give you a compact and lightweight set and MF to boot.... but I can't recall of you bought and then sold this set this already? 

I was doubting about it, but in the end I decided to go with film regarding MF. Great, but also not a daily walkaround.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qwertynm said:

I wouldn’t be surprised seeing Q2 users pick up a Q40 in a heartbeat.

 If they already have another camera with say a 35 or 50mm lens why would they need to add a duplicate? The point of the Q2/Q3 is it’s a single camera you carry and leave the rest at home. If I had a Q2 and SL2 with a 50mm lens why would I get a Q40?

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 19 Minuten schrieb Le Chef:

why would I get a Q40?

Lots of reasons. Why do some Q2 owners have a Q2M? Same camera right? But slightly different. Same as with the Q40. Different lens, different images. 
 

edit: almost forgot… go back to the image @Simone_DF posted. Size difference is huge
 

let‘s be honest here. Many enthusiasts own a Leica because they can, not because they need it. 

Edited by Qwertynm
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 2:23 PM, Le Chef said:

I'm sure if Leica lost sales they would... Know...

Leica doesn't know dick. They thought they'd only sell a few of the original Q and sales greatly exceeded expectations (and that is an understatement).

If Leica is not making a Q with longer lens it's more likely because they know they don't have the production capacity to keep up.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the Q product manager I'd start with a limited edition with some celebrity with a 40mm fast lens and make it $$$$$.  

Sure to be a sellout.  Unsure if an existing lens could be modded to work in this capacity or not but it would be fun to see. 

I'm sure capacity is an issue given they seem to be challenged keeping up with standard Q3 demand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because design and construction of the Q/Q2/Q3 is so different the task of adding lenses of different focal lengths is not easy. The shutter is built into the lens and the lens is built into the camera - there’s no mount - and the sensor position is optimized for that setup. To add 35 or 50 would require re-engineering the camera from the ground up. And that’s before you add the complexities of OIS.

So apart from the added cost of R&D that requires payback, the new variants would not only cost more but would cause the camera to lose compactness particularly if you wanted the lenses to be fast around 1.4 to 1.8 and still autofocus.

And finally there’s the added complexity of production - more parts to produce and store, and for dealers more SKU’s that requires more capital.

Edited by Le Chef
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Because design and construction of the Q/Q2/Q3 is so different the task of adding lenses of different focal lengths is not easy. The shutter is built into the lens and the lens is built into the camera - there’s no mount - and the sensor position is optimized for that setup. To add 35 or 50 would require re-engineering the camera from the ground up. And that’s before you add the complexities of OIS.

So apart from the added cost of R&D that requires payback, the new variants would not only cost more but would cause the camera to lose compactness particularly if you wanted the lenses to be fast around 1.4 to 1.8 and still autofocus.

And finally there’s the added complexity of production - more parts to produce and store, and for dealers more SKU’s that requires more capital.

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 😂

Edited by hdmesa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...