Q2 long term viability?

[DonovanMediaCenter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using the Q2 for two years at work, and love it.  As I consider retirement, I want to get a Leica for personal use.  My first thought was to get a gently used Q2.  The Q3 is enticing with more megapixels, apparently better low light performance, and improved focusing…but it my personal funds this time!  

I can take or leave a flip screen - I have cameras with a similar system, but it isn’t a draw.  I actually set up our Q2 for pretty slow work (thinking of it as a more affordable simulated M experience)…I don’t even use the back screen except to review images and use the menu , and I use a Canon for fast action run & gun work.  I don’t care about the video specs of either camera (I am a professional videographer and have better tools for that). Some have suggested a used M10, but I like the weather sealing of the Q series. And after a bit of a learning curve, low light situations don’t throw me much anymore.

I don’t know what a used Q3 will cost 18-24 months from now, but certainly a Q2 will cost less.  47 MP is plenty large for electronic viewing, and will print quite large as well…I know the 60MP Q3 would afford me more crop factor, but the cost of those extra MP seems pretty steep. I worry that a camera that will by that time be approaching 6-7 years old might be an issue…but the Q3 batteries work in a Q2, so maybe that model has a lot of good years left in it.

Edited January 24, 2024 by DonovanMediaCenter
Added deteil

[thighslapper]

The Q series are compactish carry anywhere general photography cameras so I'm not convinced absolute pixel count is a priority anyway. Leicas Q3 crop options are just a sales gimmick ..... given the ranges we are talking about you can get all that by not being bone idle and just get closer or further away. 

I got a used Q2 reporter.... which actually appears unused ..... at a significant saving and I can't see that the Q3 gives you a lot more for what it was designed to do. The q2 has well de-bugged firmware that is now pretty glitch free ..... unlike Leica's usual latest releases where you are basically a beta tester for the first couple of years ....

I'd get the camera you know and love rather than a punt on something with new features that you can live without. If you are thinking a couple of years hence the price differentials may have closed a fair bit and the choice may then be a lot less of a financial concern. 

[pcgarner]

25 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

The Q series are compactish carry anywhere general photography cameras so I'm not convinced absolute pixel count is a priority anyway. Leicas Q3 crop options are just a sales gimmick ..... given the ranges we are talking about you can get all that by not being bone idle and just get closer or further away. 

I got a used Q2 reporter.... which actually appears unused ..... at a significant saving and I can't see that the Q3 gives you a lot more for what it was designed to do. The q2 has well de-bugged firmware that is now pretty glitch free ..... unlike Leica's usual latest releases where you are basically a beta tester for the first couple of years ....

I'd get the camera you know and love rather than a punt on something with new features that you can live without. If you are thinking a couple of years hence the price differentials may have closed a fair bit and the choice may then be a lot less of a financial concern. 

Wise advise. I agree 100%. The Q2 hit a certain pinnacle and the Q3 hasn't made much of a dent. Go with what you know.

[dpitt]

The Q2 is too young to really tell on long term. Going on my experiences below, I think it could serve you for many years.

My X2 (2012) 16MP is still used on a regular basis. No signs of upcoming issues other than losing the date and time every time I switch batteries. It has a small and known issue with the battery door because of a plastic part. I am sure the Q series has a much better build quality, so it will probably keep working as it is now for many years. The X2 is still my most compact and light solution delivering real Leica IQ. Weighing half of my TL2 or M9 with the smallest lens, it delivers almost the same look as the M9 and it even is 2 stops better at high ISO.

My Leica Digilux 2 (2004) gets less use lately. But it still works as the first day. 5 MP is not much today, but it still produces stunning images for web and screen use.

[colonel]

12 hours ago, DonovanMediaCenter said:

I have been using the Q2 for two years at work, and love it.  As I consider retirement, I want to get a Leica for personal use.  My first thought was to get a gently used Q2.  The Q3 is enticing with more megapixels, apparently better low light performance, and improved focusing…but it my personal funds this time!  

I can take or leave a flip screen - I have cameras with a similar system, but it isn’t a draw.  I actually set up our Q2 for pretty slow work (thinking of it as a more affordable simulated M experience)…I don’t even use the back screen except to review images and use the menu , and I use a Canon for fast action run & gun work.  I don’t care about the video specs of either camera (I am a professional videographer and have better tools for that). Some have suggested a used M10, but I like the weather sealing of the Q series. And after a bit of a learning curve, low light situations don’t throw me much anymore.

I don’t know what a used Q3 will cost 18-24 months from now, but certainly a Q2 will cost less.  47 MP is plenty large for electronic viewing, and will print quite large as well…I know the 60MP Q3 would afford me more crop factor, but the cost of those extra MP seems pretty steep. I worry that a camera that will by that time be approaching 6-7 years old might be an issue…but the Q3 batteries work in a Q2, so maybe that model has a lot of good years left in it.

The Q3 uses the same battery as the Q2, albeit in a higher power form, so I wouldn't worry about the batteries for decades, particularly as they are also used by the SL. I can still pick up batteries for the earliest cameras on ebay. In any event, if you charge to 80%, they will last for 10 years or more.

There have been dire warning about digital systems, soldering, etc. , but again although electronic systems can fail, due mainly to corrosion (and I have seen enough corroded M film series cameras to know it is not just an electronic problem) I find electronics hqs great longevity. I have lots of vintage electronics I buy for fun, for example my TRS Tandy 100 I bought second hand, is absolutely fine, except for a cracked key on the keyboard. This was 1983 which means it is 41 years old now.

Finally, retirement isn't the end. it is MORE holidays, MORE sex and MORE hobbies. Don't persuade yourself of anything else. You still have permission to change cameras during retirement

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!

Edited January 25, 2024 by colonel

[LocalHero1953]

11 hours ago, thighslapper said:

The Q series are compactish carry anywhere general photography cameras so I'm not convinced absolute pixel count is a priority anyway. Leicas Q3 crop options are just a sales gimmick ..... given the ranges we are talking about you can get all that by not being bone idle and just get closer or further away. 

I got a used Q2 reporter.... which actually appears unused ..... at a significant saving and I can't see that the Q3 gives you a lot more for what it was designed to do. The q2 has well de-bugged firmware that is now pretty glitch free ..... unlike Leica's usual latest releases where you are basically a beta tester for the first couple of years ....

I'd get the camera you know and love rather than a punt on something with new features that you can live without. If you are thinking a couple of years hence the price differentials may have closed a fair bit and the choice may then be a lot less of a financial concern. 

Good advice with one caveat. I have not tried the Q3, but from all accounts it is a bit better in low light, and much better at AF with people. Unless these things are critical for you, then the Q2 looks a good option. My Q2 reporter is doing fine after 2 years and has never had a glitch. I have no intention of changing it: it's the perfect carry-around camera IMO.

[bobtodrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This should allay your fears

 

[JoshuaR]

I have very fond memories of the TRS Tandy 100! I'm forty-four now and used it as a kid. I learned to program BASIC on it.

As for the Q2, I think it is a "perfect" camera as is. Yes, there are some areas that seem to be improved in the Q3. But you're already familiar with the Q2's limitations, and if you don't find them limiting in practice then I think you're good to go. Personally, I have stuck the Q2 and will continue to use it for the foreseeable future (alongside my M cameras).

[Miltz]

You should not upgrade to the Q3 because of the megapixels. There are a whole list of reasons to do so which you seem to already know. The Q3 is better than the Q2 in every way with resolution being a non issue. If you’re happy with the Q2 then keep it. I didn’t like the Q2 and the Q3 solved almost all my issues with the Q2. 

Edited January 25, 2024 by Miltz

[dpitt]

Yes the Q3 is probably better than the Q2, and in the future there will be a Q4 with features that could tempt you even more.
If the Q2 does what is needed to make you happy now, then it will deliver the same for years to come.

Edited January 26, 2024 by dpitt

[WigertP]

Having similar concerns with my Q2. I wish and hope to keep it for at least a decade from now. I don’t baby it too much and I shoot approx. 80 shots/day.

What will need to be sent in for fix/service first you think?

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, WigertP said:

Having similar concerns with my Q2. I wish and hope to keep it for at least a decade from now. I don’t baby it too much and I shoot approx. 80 shots/day.

What will need to be sent in for fix/service first you think?

Probably its owner…

[nikro000]

I am a Canon shooter but was always curious about Leicas because of the picture quality I saw. I also longed for a less complicated camera. The Leica Q2 checked most boxes. I was lucky to find an (almost ) unused one for a very steep discount on Ebay. I absolutely love it. It is not my primary camera for my business but it is a terrific everyday carry camera. I just got and I also thought what if... what if I resell it and add some more money... I could get a Q3. Here is why this is not happening:

1) Great is good enough - I don't want to swipe at anyone , who buys the latest and greatest. That's what keeps the economy going, and if you have the money ... good for you! I mean that. No sarcasm. I will never be able to afford a 7000$ camera and what I have with the Q2 is a terrific time tested model that has enough features to satisfy me. I cannot fault companies to always try to sell their newest model and make it sound like you are fool if you stay with your old one. They HAVE to do that to stay afloat, Apple is a master when it comes to that.  I just don't buy into the gear race. Great, even if older, is good enough.

2) Yes, the Q3 is probably better... BUT...

   -) more megapixels - sure but 60 over 47 does not make a significant difference. Even in cropping. When you compare the cropping size tables between q2 and q3, there is not that much difference. 

   -) better light performance - I don't doubt that. But it is the same lens and the summilux 28mm is extremely good in low light by itself. I would be surprised if the low light difference was significant.

   -) Swivel screen - now there is an upgrade that made me think. At my age I don't want to throw myself on the floor that much anymore to take pictures. A swivel screen can be great tool to take shots from many angles. Is worth the $4000 upgrade from my used q2 to the q3? Nope, not for me.

3) Will theq3 make me a better photographer, who produces better pictures - I seriously doubt it. Skill and talent is not determined by gear. 

4) Technology - there is an argument to be made to buy the latest model, because it will not become obsolete for a long time. I don't have that fear with Leicas. They age gracefully. I expect that my Leica Q2 will be supported for another 10yrs.

For all the reasons above, I will love and stay with my Leica Q2.

Hope this helps

 

Edited February 7, 2024 by nikro000

[mikelevitt]

I still use my M9 regularly.  I paid about $5000 for it new, and they still sell for half of that or more, which must be the highest resale value of any digital camera.  

I think the Q2 is a classic that I plan to keep and use forever.  There's nothing in the Q3 that I find compelling.

My X1 and Digilux 2 also still work perfectly, and I am using their original batteries still.