Switching from Q to M

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, trickness said:

I don’t agree with any of these assertions.

What’s important in any photograph is “what is this photograph about”? 

Depth of field is just a tool to support what a photograph is about, whether that means being stopped down or wide open. Shooting wide open is by no means a “failure of the photographer” if it was an intentional creative choice.

M cameras don’t have a monopoly on manual focusing. This is just more myopic M rhetoric. You can have the exact experience shooting M glass (or SL glass on manual focus) on an SL body, or manually focusing a Q.

 

I had Q, Q2 and SL cameras. I abandoned them precisely because of the very slow and inconvenient manual focus at f8, f11, f16. I take 90 percent of my shots at these apertures. The exception is portraits of my family members, in which case I actually use an open aperture more often. I mainly shoot street, documentary photography, city landscapes, in these cases the open aperture kills the frame

[trickness]

1 minute ago, Smogg said:

I had Q, Q2 and SL cameras. I abandoned them precisely because of the very slow and inconvenient manual focus at f8, f11, f16. I take 90 percent of my shots at these apertures. The exception is portraits of my family members, in which case I actually use an open aperture more often. I mainly shoot street, documentary photography, city landscapes, in these cases the open aperture kills the frame

Well, you are talking about your personal creative decisions. And whatever works for you is what you should go with.

If I shoot at f8 on the street, I’m usually shooting with a 28 mm or wider, so I can use the camera like a point and shoot and compose my frame very quickly. So I’m not really focusing at all at that point.

I don’t really understand though why it is so slow and inconvenient to just click on the magnify button on the SL to zoom in and get critical focus at small apertures. It doesn’t sound like you need to be fast if you’re taking city landscape photographs in any case.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Smogg]

38 minutes ago, trickness said:

Well, you are talking about your personal creative decisions. And whatever works for you is what you should go with.

If I shoot at f8 on the street, I’m usually shooting with a 28 mm or wider, so I can use the camera like a point and shoot and compose my frame very quickly. So I’m not really focusing at all at that point.

I don’t really understand though why it is so slow and inconvenient to just click on the magnify button on the SL to zoom in and get critical focus at small apertures. It doesn’t sound like you need to be fast if you’re taking city landscape photographs in any case.

 

With the SL camera this is of course also possible using magnification, but aligning the vertical lines with the M camera is much faster. If I don’t use zone focus, then I always start focusing from infinity (this is my focus position by default). I start focusing before I even bring the camera to my face and only at the last moment I make the final adjustment, this is much faster than pressing extra buttons and switching to an enlarged image, losing sight of the scene. And if a person is moving towards you, then the digital magnification is useless

Edited March 2 by Smogg

[trickness]

3 minutes ago, Smogg said:

With the SL camera this is of course also possible using magnification, but aligning the vertical lines with the M camera is much faster. If I don’t use zone focus, then I always start focusing from infinity (this is my focus position by default). I start focusing before I even bring the camera to my face and only at the last moment I make the final adjustment, this is much faster than pressing extra buttons and switching to an enlarged image, losing sight of the scene. And if a person is moving towards you, then the digital magnification is useless

I don’t think trying to focus a rangefinder while someone is moving towards you is any kind of a treat either. That’s why we have range focusing, which can also be done on SL with M lenses. Or native glass.

again, we all have preferences on how we work, but that doesn’t mean that an EVF camera cannot work for other people.

[Smogg]

7 minutes ago, trickness said:

I don’t think trying to focus a rangefinder while someone is moving towards you is any kind of a treat either. That’s why we have range focusing, which can also be done on SL with M lenses. Or native glass.

again, we all have preferences on how we work, but that doesn’t mean that an EVF camera cannot work for other people.

It seems to me that the purpose of this topic is to describe the pros and cons of different cameras and give advice to the topic starter. so I shared my experience and situations where the power of the M camera comes into play. With lenses 28 and 35 I also mainly use zone focus, but starting from 50 it is more difficult, there is a high risk of error. A camera with an EVF can do the same, but in my opinion it is slower, heavier and attracts more attention on the street. In addition, the M can be equipped with an external EVF if desired.

[trickness]

5 minutes ago, Smogg said:

It seems to me that the purpose of this topic is to describe the pros and cons of different cameras and give advice to the topic starter. so I shared my experience and situations where the power of the M camera comes into play. With lenses 28 and 35 I also mainly use zone focus, but starting from 50 it is more difficult, there is a high risk of error. A camera with an EVF can do the same, but in my opinion it is slower, heavier and attracts more attention on the street. In addition, the M can be equipped with an external EVF if desired.

The Q comes with a 28 mm lens and an integral EVF. And it can be manually focused. And it is smaller, lighter and a lot less expensive than the M, which doesn’t even include a lens. So we are back to the original question that the OP asked.

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, trickness said:

The Q comes with a 28 mm lens and an integral EVF. And it can be manually focused. And it is smaller, lighter and a lot less expensive than the M, which doesn’t even include a lens. So we are back to the original question that the OP asked.

The Q has a quite large lens, which makes it feel larger than the M. And if we talk about cameras comparable in size to the SL, then my choice is the Hasselblad X2D with compact lenses 38 or 55. No camera in my memory produces such beautiful color

[trickness]

6 minutes ago, Smogg said:

The Q has a quite large lens, which makes it feel larger than the M. And if we talk about cameras comparable in size to the SL, then my choice is the Hasselblad X2D with compact lenses 38 or 55. No camera in my memory produces such beautiful color

The Q has a 1.7 Lux. Put a 28 Lux on your M (for like 8 grand) and then tell me how small it is.

[Smogg]

8 minutes ago, trickness said:

The Q has a 1.7 Lux. Put a 28 Lux on your M (for like 8 grand) and then tell me how small it is.

It would never even occur to me to buy a 1.4 wide-angle lens; I have no tasks for it. If the Q was f4, and because of this had a small lens, I would buy it without hesitation, as a backup to the M. I use 28 summicron, 35 Apo, 50 Apo on M

[Smogg]

In addition, the focal length of the Q is approximately 25/1.7 before strong software correction. In terms of DOF this roughly corresponds to 28/2.1 at 3 meters

Edited March 2 by Smogg

[trickness]

33 minutes ago, Smogg said:

It would never even occur to me to buy a 1.4 wide-angle lens; I have no tasks for it. If the Q was f4, and because of this had a small lens, I would buy it without hesitation, as a backup to the M. I use 28 summicron, 35 Apo, 50 Apo on M

Which is relevant to the OP's original question how exactly?

The Q series is what it is., for about 6K. You're suggesting the OP buy a 9K body and a 4K/9K lens to shoot at apertures appropriate to a landscape photographer.

FFS 

[Smogg]

3 minutes ago, trickness said:

Which is relevant to the OP's original question how exactly?

The Q series is what it is., for about 6K. You're suggesting the OP buy a 9K body and a 4K/9K lens to shoot at apertures appropriate to a landscape photographer.

FFS 

If a person is interested in the M camera, then as I understand it, he has already decided on the price issue for himself. There is no need to buy APO lenses, there are many excellent summicron or Zeiss

[Smogg]

In my opinion, buying APO is overkill. You can consider this my whim, even adults need toys

[Jeff S]

7 minutes ago, Smogg said:

In my opinion, buying APO is overkill. You can consider this my whim, even adults need toys

The product list in your profile does not fully reflect your whim (35 Summilux). 

Jeff

[Smogg]

Just now, Jeff S said:

The product list in your profile does not fully reflect your whim (35 Summilux). 

Jeff

This is old information, I haven't updated it for a long time, I sold 35 lux, 50 lux and 50 Nocti and never regretted it

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, Smogg said:

This is old information, I haven't updated it for a long time, I sold 35 lux, 50 lux and 50 Nocti and never regretted it

Two out of three have been updated.

Jeff

[Smogg]

4 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Two out of three have been updated.

Jeff

Updated, but it’s impossible to specify M11 there

[Jeff S]

I was referring to the 3 lenses listed; no cameras are specified, so no basis to update. One reason I never bother with such lists… never out of date when not specified to start.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

43 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Updated, but it’s impossible to specify M11 there

Btw, many specify cameras too

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/profile/22852-m11-for-me/

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

I had Q, Q2 and SL cameras. I abandoned them precisely because of the very slow and inconvenient manual focus at f8, f11, f16. I take 90 percent of my shots at these apertures.

As an M first shooter who sold off his Q years ago, I hestiate to wade in here, but I'm a little confused by your statement.  While I'd completely agree that fly-by-wire MF with native L glass on the SL is, at best, very unsatisfying, I'm struggling to understand what aperture has to do with it. Perhaps you are referring to employing M glass on the SL, in which case I would heartily agree.

OTOH, I found the Q, both tactilely as well as speed wise, to be acceptable to good for MF in most situations.  As either the Qs or SL sport auto aperture, unlike the M when depending on the EVF, they are far better equipped for precise focus with smaller apertures, particularly with wide lenses.  With an M, unless one is willing to manipulate the aperture open and then closed (and even then), focusing precision can really only be achieved via the optical finder.  The price paid, of course, is that at 28mm or wider (particularly if your wear glasses as I do), precise framing is difficult to impossible via the OVF.  AFAIC, a key piece of the M's power and flexibility is derived from its unique ability to provide a combination of VF modes. In the end, this was what lead me to dump the Q in favor of the 'lux.  But taking advantage of this power means having to accept using two different viewing portals when the occasion arises. Something that many find too much of a burden.

Others might disagree, but as someone pushing 70, I find the size/weight argument between Q and M to be rather silly.  To my mind there is a basic line above which things are a burden, but until one crosses it, there is no substantive difference.  My standard out and about M kit consists of the WATE, 28 and 50mm 'luxes.  No burden whatsoever for hour upon hour.  However, the same can not be said for an equivalent SL setup.  The 16-35mm + 28 and 50 APOs would indeed go well beyond my personal threshold for all day use.  But were I to re-acquire a Q, the issue of mass would never receive the slightest consideration when opting to take it rather than an M with the 28 'lux nor even my full standard M kit.  

As for the OP, the Q and M may well bear a family resemblance to each other so its natural for those relatively new to the party to consider the two in opposition. And indeed, there are occasions where either can carry out a similar mission and achieve a similar result. But in the end, they are very, very different platforms with staggeringly separate agendas.  I'd council the OP to carefully consider the scope of shooting they expect to undertake as upon closer examination there are very clear elements of differentiation between the two.  Either has their strengths and limitations. Understanding the core of one's own use cases should provide any prospective buyer with a fairly clear answer as to which way to go.  Or with deep enough pockets, just own both. Many do. And if not quite deep enough, perhaps add a lightly used M rather than replacing an existing Q.