Switching from Q to M

[stindiri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all,

i was very surprised that this topic is not so present in the forum. Although a lot of Leica users consider the Q as the gateway drug to the Leica world..

I am currently struggling to make a decision switching from a Q3 to an M10 (probably).

These are my biggest concerns for now:

1. not weather resistant > is there a good insurance policy in Germany to make this solved?
2. Focusing - i have very vital kids, so the only way to nail focus in this case would be f8 zone focusing, though i need for that sufficient light everytime..
3. Minimum focus distance 70cm
4. No Leica Looks as in Q3 what i kinda like
5. No video - not a big negativ though
6. Service time to time necessary 

Would love to hear your take on this or your journey to the M system. And sure, i do plan to rent an M for a couple of days to try

 

Many thanks in advance for all your contributions!!

Best,

Robert

[Advertisement]

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

[RexGig0]

2. Distance/Scale focusing is very good for photographing small, active children. I find it especially useful to hold the camera at the small children’s level, so they act naturally, rather than look upward, at my face, to “ham” for the camera. This low position of the camera facilitates my looking at the distance and depth-of-field scales. Generally, I keep the focusing ring set for about six feet/two meters. When a child gets closer than six feet/two meters, I quickly move the focusing ring to Mininum Distance, and as the child moves farther away, I re-set the ring to six feet/two meters.  

3. There are Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander VM lenses that allow closer focusing distances. The rangefinder is not coupled at distances closer than 0.7m, but when zone/scale focusing, that is not an issue. An R-Adapter-M allows using Leica R lenses, many of which will focus closer than 0.7m. An example is my 35mm Elmarit-R, the version with the E55 filter thread, to focus as close as 0.2m. (The R-Adapter-M does not couple to the rangefinder.)

4. M lenses have their own “looks.” I really like the less-modern rendering of the Elmarit-M 28mm Version III, for photographing my small grandsons, using the distance and depth-or-field scales to focus. See discussions of Walter Mandler lenses, in the M Lens section of the forum.

5. The M Types 240 and 246 have video capability. I have not used it, but, it is there.

6. Any camera may require servicing. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by RexGig0

[PhoToad]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb stindiri:

Dear all,

i was very surprised that this topic is not so present in the forum. Although a lot of Leica users consider the Q as the gateway drug to the Leica world..

I am currently struggling to make a decision switching from a Q3 to an M10 (probably).

These are my biggest concerns for now:

1. not weather resistant > is there a good insurance policy in Germany to make this solved?
2. Focusing - i have very vital kids, so the only way to nail focus in this case would be f8 zone focusing, though i need for that sufficient light everytime..
3. Minimum focus distance 70cm
4. No Leica Looks as in Q3 what i kinda like
5. No video - not a big negativ though
6. Service time to time necessary 

Would love to hear your take on this or your journey to the M system. And sure, i do plan to rent an M for a couple of days to try

 

Many thanks in advance for all your contributions!!

Best,

Robert

Yes, the Q (Typ 116 in my case) really can be a gateway drug ...

But with regard to your concerns:

1. The M10 (as well as M240) body is weather restistant, but the lenses aren't. However, this alone would be no reason for me to get an insurance and I would not hesitate to use the M also in slight rain. There are many dedicated camera insurence offerings in Germany (you may google it). Moreover, some household insurances also offer the option to include photographic equipment.

2. For kids: yes, wide angle (28 or 35 mm), zone focusing and higher ISO (should be no problem with the M10) for higher shutter speeds.

3. There are some newer (but expensive) Leica lenses that offer shorter minimum focus distances. Many (modern) Voigtländer lenses that optically are more or less at the same level as Leica's now have a minimum focus distance of 50 cm.

4. Post processing should come quite close to the look that you desire.

5. You could choose the M-(P)240, which is the last in the M series that has video (but the lack of sensor stabilization makes its use somewhat less enjoyable).

6. During the 3 years that I now own an M, no service was necessary. Starting with the the M240, the M cameras are said to be much less prone to rangefinder dislocation than previous types.

Good luck for your decision!

[la1402]

58 minutes ago, stindiri said:

Dear all,

i was very surprised that this topic is not so present in the forum. Although a lot of Leica users consider the Q as the gateway drug to the Leica world..

I am currently struggling to make a decision switching from a Q3 to an M10 (probably).

These are my biggest concerns for now:

1. not weather resistant > is there a good insurance policy in Germany to make this solved?
2. Focusing - i have very vital kids, so the only way to nail focus in this case would be f8 zone focusing, though i need for that sufficient light everytime..
3. Minimum focus distance 70cm
4. No Leica Looks as in Q3 what i kinda like
5. No video - not a big negativ though
6. Service time to time necessary 

Would love to hear your take on this or your journey to the M system. And sure, i do plan to rent an M for a couple of days to try

 

Many thanks in advance for all your contributions!!

Best,

Robert

Went from a Q2 to a M11.

The lack of AF and IBIS, and the higher weight are for me the biggest differences. And they do matter, especially when this is supposed to be a camera for shooting kids and family. I like my M11 a lot, but for Family stuff I prefer something with AF and IBIS.  For something outdoors in mixed weather, I also hesitate to use it. In both situations I would be fine with a Q. But I prefer the look of my M Summiluxes. So not easy.

[tim]

Hi stindiri,

I am using M cameras - analog as well as digital - since 30+ decades and never had any issues with water resistance. I take them everywhere … sailing, ski touring, cycling … but take good care of them. Therefore so would not see your 1. concern as a real valid one unless you plan to dump your camera in water.

the 70cm close-up focus may be a limitation - some lenses even have 1m … but you find some newer lenses and 3rd party lenses which allow to select shorter focus distances. Here the live-view of the M10 is quite nice.

M cameras don’t need any service unless I drop them … with my M8 I had all the usual “teething troubles” but after that initial the camera has worked flawless for 15 years or so and my M10 hast not been serviced yet as well.

If you are after a digital  rangefinder the M10 is a brilliant option!

Cheers Tim

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, stindiri said:

Dear all,

i was very surprised that this topic is not so present in the forum. Although a lot of Leica users consider the Q as the gateway drug to the Leica world..

I am currently struggling to make a decision switching from a Q3 to an M10 (probably).

These are my biggest concerns for now:

1. not weather resistant > is there a good insurance policy in Germany to make this solved?
2. Focusing - i have very vital kids, so the only way to nail focus in this case would be f8 zone focusing, though i need for that sufficient light everytime..
3. Minimum focus distance 70cm
4. No Leica Looks as in Q3 what i kinda like
5. No video - not a big negativ though
6. Service time to time necessary 

Would love to hear your take on this or your journey to the M system. And sure, i do plan to rent an M for a couple of days to try

 

Many thanks in advance for all your contributions!!

Best,

Robert

Some of the best answers have been given above. Just my 2 cents...

2. AF vs Mf is a tradeoff IMO
For predictable movements MF is actually faster because you can pre-focus on the spot where your subject will be. That is very hard with AF.
If you use 28mm or 35mm, the n you can zone focus with F4.0 and up.
3. The M can be adapted to many old MF lenses with closer focus distance. To begin with to the old R lenses.
Of course you have to use LV or EVF then.

Main advantage is that with a tiny M lens mounted, the M10 can be smaller than the Q. So much that it fits in a coat pocket. I often take my M9 with Summicron 40C or Summicron 35. That really gives a different experience.

The main advantage of course is the RF. It allows for seeing outside the frame. This improves my results considerably, both by anticipating objects moving inside my frame, and by presenting me with framing options in a different way.
Also, the fact that you do not see through the lens triggers an area in my brain that is not activated when using reflex or mirrorless camera's.

Try it, if you like the RF experience you will never look back. If not, you can always sell without much loss.

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the Q for your "kid oriented" photos makes much more sense than an M body, which is better served for other subject shooting. Having grown up with manual focusing RF cameras, I found that photographing my toddler daughter was often better achieved using a longer focal length lens than a 50 (I actually only owned a 35 and 135 for my Leica at that time, although I also owned other cameras). Looking back on those 50 year old photos, I was able to capture close-up expressions without the distortion a 35 or 50 would have introduced. Just a thought if you are seriously contemplating an M body for kid photos. IMHO a 75 should do a great job, but will take a little practice - best to have the kid engaged in some activity than trying to capture them running around.

[Jeremy Bunting]

Is there a financial reason why you need to get rid of the Q3, at least initially?  I made the switch from the Q2 to the M11 and only sold my Q2 after six months when it became clear I didn't miss it enough to warrant holding. But it was nice to know it was there at first.

[jgeenen]

1. not weather resistant > is there a good insurance policy in Germany to make this solved?
   I never found the limitations of water resistance of M-kit an issue. But anyhow, a good insurance covers damages caused by water as well. (I however never needed my insurance, so I can't tell from experience if they have any concerns).
2. Focusing - i have very vital kids, so the only way to nail focus in this case would be f8 zone focusing, though i need for that sufficient light everytime..
   Even vital kids are no problem if you are able to predict their movement, use prefocussing or even depth of field. f8 zone focussing however is a mixed bag if you only rely on that. Given the high resolution of digital cameras and the habit to zoom in pics on the screen, the value of zone focussing becomes more and more debatable. But if most of your shots are made during fast action, the M is probably not the best choice.
3. Minimum focus distance 70cm
   You can work around it, but if you use close focussing regulary, the M might not be the best choice.
4. No Leica Looks as in Q3 what i kinda like
   Good Out-of-cam JPGs is a weak point of M cameras. Don't switch to M if you intend to use  mainly JPG.
5. No video - not a big negativ though
   There are many good options to add good video options to your kit. Probably a decent iphone? 
6. Service time to time necessary 
   This is a myth. 

[ianforber]

The Q2 was a gateway drug for me. I love it and decided to get an M11 because of the positive experience and because I’d always wanted an M camera. At the last minute I decided to keep my Q2 rather than trade it in for the M11. An expensive decision but one I’m glad I made. 
 

1. I happily use the M11 in poor weather, including heavy rain showers in the city. However I usually take my Q2 when hiking in bad weather as I’m happier leaving it out clipped to my rucksack straps with a PD clip. 
2. No kids here so I can’t comment but I’d probably use zone focusing if there were loads of them running around. 
3. I have a Voigtlander 35mm which focuses to 0.5m which is a nice to have rather than something I would use regularly. The cropability of files from both camera means I don’t need to get close to fill the frame with a subject and if I want the depth of field of really close focusing I’ll use the Q2. Never used close focusing filters though so don’t know how they would work on a M camera. 
4. I just use post processing to get the look I want. You can use/create presets which are basically what the Q3 Leica Looks are anyway. 
5. I’d use iPhone for video. 
6. I agree with others, I doubt regular servicing will be needed for any modern M

[stindiri]

Am 28.2.2024 um 13:59 schrieb RexGig0:

2. Distance/Scale focusing is very good for photographing small, active children. I find it especially useful to hold the camera at the small children’s level, so they act naturally, rather than look upward, at my face, to “ham” for the camera. This low position of the camera facilitates my looking at the distance and depth-of-field scales. Generally, I keep the focusing ring set for about six feet/two meters. When a child gets closer than six feet/two meters, I quickly move the focusing ring to Mininum Distance, and as the child moves farther away, I re-set the ring to six feet/two meters.  

3. There are Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander VM lenses that allow closer focusing distances. The rangefinder is not coupled at distances closer than 0.7m, but when zone/scale focusing, that is not an issue. An R-Adapter-M allows using Leica R lenses, many of which will focus closer than 0.7m. An example is my 35mm Elmarit-R, the version with the E55 filter thread, to focus as close as 0.2m. (The R-Adapter-M does not couple to the rangefinder.)

4. M lenses have their own “looks.” I really like the less-modern rendering of the Elmarit-M 28mm Version III, for photographing my small grandsons, using the distance and depth-or-field scales to focus. See discussions of Walter Mandler lenses, in the M Lens section of the forum.

5. The M Types 240 and 246 have video capability. I have not used it, but, it is there.

6. Any camera may require servicing. 

Dear all,

many thanks for your time, effort and contribution. 
 

I guess my most concerns have been cleared now. Will nonetheless train a but manual focusing with my Q and definitely rent an M body to try out. 
 

I will definitely report back here. 
 

Many thanks and best regards,

Robert

Edited March 1, 2024 by stindiri

[trickness]

if you're looking to primarily photograph your family/kids, stick with the Q3. The M is for very intentional photography. You'll spend more money (lens camera combo) and miss a lot of shots, even once you get good with the rangefinder. You're not going to want to shoot at f8 all the time. I use my Q2M for family stuff unless the kids will stop and pose for me.

I'm not saying you CAN'T use an M for family pix, it's just way easier to use a Q variant. Like way easier.

 

Edited March 1, 2024 by trickness

[evikne]

I'm always skeptical when I hear someone considering buying an M and thinking of relying on zone focusing. By not using the rangefinder for focusing, you miss out on the most characteristic feature of an M.

[costa43]

The Q sounds like it will suit you better looking at your list of pros for the Q but if it is possible for you to pick up an M prior to selling your Q then you can make an informed decision and then sell the less desirable option (There is a danger you will keep both here, I speak from experience!)

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2024 by costa43

[dpitt]

39 minutes ago, trickness said:

if you're looking to primarily photograph your family/kids, stick with the Q3. The M is for very intentional photography. You'll spend more money (lens camera combo) and miss a lot of shots, even once you get good with the rangefinder. You're not going to want to shoot at f8 all the time. I use my Q2M for family stuff unless the kids will stop and pose for me.

I'm not saying you CAN'T use an M for family pix, it's just way easier to use a Q variant. Like way easier.

 

Agreed it is easier with AF. But, I hate that AF often wastes my time just at the moment I do not want it. It picks the wrong subject to focus on, or refuses to find it in time because of low light. What I really hate is thinking I have a shot when I do not have it... I have one shot of my son, where I had focus on his eyes, and just when I take it, he lifts his thumb (up) in front of him... The stupid thing focused on the thumb of course... And worse, I did not see that until I did the PP at home.
I still printed it because of the moment.

This would never have happened with my M. First of all, I am faster than AF in low light with it, and once I have focused, it stays on my intended subject...

On average, my M is more hard work, so I shoot less in volume, but the result is often more keepers than with my AF systems.

7 minutes ago, evikne said:

M and thinking of relying on zone focusing

Right. The M is made for it. Use the RF, and practice. It is not hard and has its advantages over AF. Only use zone focus if you do not know at all what to expect or do not want the subject to know that you are taking a picture (shooting from the hip)...

Edited March 1, 2024 by dpitt

[trickness]

26 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Agreed it is easier with AF. But, I hate that AF often wastes my time just at the moment I do not want it. It picks the wrong subject to focus on, or refuses to find it in time because of low light. What I really hate is thinking I have a shot when I do not have it... I have one shot of my son, where I had focus on his eyes, and just when I take it, he lifts his thumb (up) in front of him... The stupid thing focused on the thumb of course... And worse, I did not see that until I did the PP at home.
I still printed it because of the moment.

This would never have happened with my M. First of all, I am faster than AF in low light with it, and once I have focused, it stays on my intended subject...

On average, my M is more hard work, so I shoot less in volume, but the result is often more keepers than with my AF systems.

Right. The M is made for it. Use the RF, and practice. It is not hard and has its advantages over AF. Only use zone focus if you do not know at all what to expect or do not want the subject to know that you are taking a picture (shooting from the hip)...

Never in my reply did I once mention auto focus. I barely use it on the Q.

I move the focus ring to manual, and I look through the EVF to get focus. This is way easier at almost any aperture than trying to get focus with a rangefinder. You can easily see that you’re in the ballpark with focus, and just ride the focus on the lens as the subject moves. It enables you to get pretty close to sharp at even 1.7, something you absolutely are never going to get on an M at that aperture. And of course, if you’re shooting stopped down, you have more depth of field latitude because it’s a 28, so it becomes even easier.

The EVF is absolutely the best thing about using the Q and SL cameras with M glass. I have plenty of time on an M and I’m infinitely faster and more accurate using EVF & manual focus.

 

[Al Brown]

Just switch and never look back. Life is so simple.

[dpitt]

35 minutes ago, trickness said:

Never in my reply did I once mention auto focus. I barely use it on the Q.

Then, what is holding you back?
I can guarantee that the M will focus faster and more accurately than the Q3 in MF mode.
Any Leica M beats the Q in size, versatility, IQ, viewer lag,...

The only technical advantage that remains apart from AF is the IS. Or am I missing something?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[trickness]

58 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Then, what is holding you back?
I can guarantee that the M will focus faster and more accurately than the Q3 in MF mode.
Any Leica M beats the Q in size, versatility, IQ, viewer lag,...

The only technical advantage that remains apart from AF is the IS. Or am I missing something?

And I guarantee you that the M will not focus more accurately. Because you aren’t actually seeing a in focus image through the viewfinder, unless you lineup the two images. Which is nowhere near as fast as seeing the actual image in focus as you turn the focus ring on an EVF camera. Not to mention that you are also seeing the exposure preview, as well as an accurate depiction of what is going to be in the frame (which with an M, is an approximation)

M users have this religion about how fast and perfect the rangefinder - it is not reality in practice. You can learn to be a fast rangefinder focuser, I will give you that, but for most people, seeing the actual image in the EVF, go in and out of focus as you turn the manual focus on the Q is way easier. ESPECIALLY with a moving subject.

Just hand a rangefinder to 99% of photographers and it will take them weeks if not months to learn how to use it properly. Meanwhile it takes about five minutes to learn how to focus a Q. There are lots of comments even on this forum about how difficult it can be to nail focus with an M, especially with a fast lens wide open. I don’t think I’ve seen a single post with anyone ever saying they had a hard time focusing with a Q.

But hey, we all live in our own preferred reality, so whatever floats your boat….

Edited March 1, 2024 by trickness

[evikne]

1 hour ago, trickness said:

The EVF is absolutely the best thing about using the Q and SL cameras with M glass. I have plenty of time on an M and I’m infinitely faster and more accurate using EVF & manual focus.

How is the Q's EVF compared to SL? I haven't tried any of them, but I can imagine manual focus with an SL is a dream.