Dilemma.. Need wise input please

[Tomokun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there 

I'm an old lurker but first time poster. Hope to post more often now. 

I'm at the phase where I'm tired with my Canon gear during a trip, ended up leaving it at the hotel, and rethinking now about my step ahead. While it's nice to have the zooms, it's just cumbersome and I envy those with lighter set up. 

I want a camera that's powerful enough but also compact enough to be out in my edc bag. Additional things like looking discreet, good looking gear, etc are just a nice bonus. 

I only have enough budget to get either:

A. Leica q2 or Leica m10 w/ cheap voigtlander lens.

B. Leica Q1 type 116 + Leica m240 with cheap voigtlander/tt artisan lens

Or lastly

C. Leica Q1 type 116 + Fujifilm x100vi/Leica SL mark 1+ Panasonic prime lens. 

All are going to be Used price of course. 

Basically I can only afford to get either 1 very expensive (my budget is low) m10/q2, or multiple cameras but older, such as q1+m240.

A tiny bit background for me is, I used to own and tried many brands from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, nikon, and even Leica with m240 paired e/ 28+50cron being the last Leica I owned back in 2015. The reason why I left Leica back then was due to the quick turnaround result demanded by the, my fiance, to give to the rest of the family. Also some missed focus (my fault obviously) during indoor usage (all of our family events mainly are indoor) that led to some unusable images. 

Why even contemplating going back to m240 again? Well time has changed. Back then I was just started using a glasses, and with no diopter it was quite annoying to have to search for my glasses just to take a picture. Nowadays, I always use my glasses. Then the quick turnaround thing, back then it was impossible to get the raw file directly to our phones. Nowadays, just use USB c card reader and plug into my phone and I can edit on the go. Lastly, the lenses. There are many many more lenses especially the more affordable ones now and this helps a lot as the first step. 

Why must there be a Leica q? Well because based on my experience, having one compact that's ready and simple to use, almost like point and shoot during a rush or one of those lazy, want autofocus, day, is amazing. Leica q being my dream camera back in 2016 until today I've never own one, and the price of the used type 116 is just amazingly low now. 

Why even considering the sl? Well I used to own one. Paired it with voigtlander 40mm f1.2. Simply because I couldn't afford their 24-90 zooms back then, and the L mount alliance lenses wasn't thriving like today. I remember fondly on how the body feels and the colors coming out of that SL was magical. For me, it's also the real SL without being branded Panasonic S1/s5 copycat. This is maybe the last option though since the body alone is huge. 

Anyone can help me with my dilemma? Maybe anyone can provide a personal story on how you choose Leica q/older m? 

 

Thank you so much in advance. 

[David Wien]

I have a Canon R6 and a good selection of lenses between 10 and 300 mm, including a shift lens. It takes excellent photos, the only problem being that one needs to have the appropriate lens to frame them and make optimum use of the 20MP. It is my experience that the lens that I need for a shot is often the one that I left at home, and carrying them all everywhere with me would be crazy. About a year ago, I noticed that pictures taken with the 60MP sensor of the Q3 were always high resolution, even at f/1.7, and higher than provided by my (mostly not L-series) Canon lenses. So I bought one and I am very pleased with it, particularly the fact that I can crop quite heavily and still save highly acceptable results.

I always look at the Q3, Q2 and Q threads here, where members show their photos, and I am frquently impressed by the technical quality of those taken with the older models. If a used Q2 or Q1 fits your budget, I would not hesitate to get one, though I think the Q2 might be preferable, with its higher pixel count. (at this point, you might be lucky to find an affrodable used Q3.) Other Leica cameras without a fixed lens retain the problem of carrying weighty lenses with you, and some of these are heavier than the Canon series!

Let us hear more from you!

Best wishes,

David

[wolfewithane]

Welcome. If you're not put off by the Q2's fixed 28mm lens, it's an excellent EDC. 

[PluckinTones]

Almost a year with the Q2 here, it excels in every aspect. The 28mm lens is perfect for travel and everyday use, cropping to 35mm or 50mm is excellent. The colors are luscious, AF is great for stills, macro is superb, and battery life is fantastic. My only wish is for it to be slightly smaller.

Unless you lust after manual focus and the true rangefinder experience, the Q (especially the Q2 or Q3) is the perfect daily companion. 

[jankap]

You should make clear too, what kind of photos you are interested in.

I would not hesitate to buy a Q1, if that would fulfil my need. I take landscape photos and have a large pack of "old" lenses.

You mention a Q type and an M type camera. M types are different, be aware. I recommend to look at the mirror-less cameras from Canon, because you have lenses from them.

By the way, why does one think, that he needs(!) three different types of cameras? I list: Q, M and Smartphone.😗

Edited July 10, 2024 by jankap

[AdrianTurner]

I was almost in the same position as @Tomokun except I was able to buy a new Q3.  Let me tell you why I did it.  Last year I was on a long expedition cruise to Djibouti, Saudi and a few other places and was lugging a Canon EOS 6D with a big white lens, a kit lens and a heavy wide-angle.  There was this guy, a farmer from New Zealand, who had this Leica Q2 and said he had dumped all his heavy gear a year before.  That idea kept nagging at me, I watched scores of YouTube videos, I hovered on this Forum, and then in April I went on another expedition cruise to the Amazon and West Africa with the same kit.  My wife,  by the way, had a Leica D-Lux 7 and I wondered why I needed all my old stuff.  OK, I took a few nice bird shots, but mostly I was taking landscapes and street shooting.  And in places like Guinea-Bissau you need to be discreet.  So as soon as I got back to the UK I traded in all my Canon gear, plus a Nikon I had lying around, and got the Q3.  I love it.  It looks beautiful, a work of art.  And because of its focal length limitations  I think it challenges you to be a better photographer and it has helped my aching back and shoulders.  

Edited July 10, 2024 by AdrianTurner

[JNK100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went for a Canon 1ds when it came out and had the 16/35 and 70/200 2.8's. 

When the later bodies versions came out I upgraded at great cost but was always happy with the set-up and results. But why did I need a pro sports camera for travel and street photography...

The turning point came in Lisbon walking uphill in the mid-day sun with nearly 5kg of equipment in holsters.

When I returned home I sold the L lenses and bought a 24/105 which I liked but I handled a Leica M9 and sold.all my Canon gear to part fund it and a 50mm 'Lux. The total change was a revelation in terms of enjoyment and also the weight difference ! This is the camera most loved but I changed it for an SL and kept the M lens. I did this as I found the SL enabled more accurate framing and on some circumstances, focus.

A heavy and larger camera though. I respected it but didn't 'love it.

For some reason I moved to Fuji XT range with a couple of zooms but couldn't resist the Q3 when it came out.

It's a camera to love and enjoy using and well as giving spectacular results. I am sure the Q2 would be similar.

I would be lying if I said I didn't hanker for a M someday for pleasure of use but the Q is keeping this temptation away.

If I was advising my 'old self' I would say go for the Q2. The SL is heavy and I would see no need for both a Q and an M.

If possible I would try and borrow/rent a Q2.

A tough decision but good luck making it!

 

 

 

[Tomokun]

3 hours ago, David Wien said:

I have a Canon R6 and a good selection of lenses between 10 and 300 mm, including a shift lens. It takes excellent photos, the only problem being that one needs to have the appropriate lens to frame them and make optimum use of the 20MP. It is my experience that the lens that I need for a shot is often the one that I left at home, and carrying them all everywhere with me would be crazy. About a year ago, I noticed that pictures taken with the 60MP sensor of the Q3 were always high resolution, even at f/1.7, and higher than provided by my (mostly not L-series) Canon lenses. So I bought one and I am very pleased with it, particularly the fact that I can crop quite heavily and still save highly acceptable results.

I always look at the Q3, Q2 and Q threads here, where members show their photos, and I am frquently impressed by the technical quality of those taken with the older models. If a used Q2 or Q1 fits your budget, I would not hesitate to get one, though I think the Q2 might be preferable, with its higher pixel count. (at this point, you might be lucky to find an affrodable used Q3.) Other Leica cameras without a fixed lens retain the problem of carrying weighty lenses with you, and some of these are heavier than the Canon series!

Let us hear more from you!

Best wishes,

David

Thanks for the reply and warm welcome.

 

I actually have Canon r8 plus couple of L zoom lenses that is waiting to be sold. It's funny because I can totally relate to what you've said. I recently left the lens I actually needed for a trip with many requiring ultra wide angle lenses just because the lens weight so much (15-35L). I kept thinking to myself, what a wimp I was and what's the point of owning it then.. Then the other day, I also brought the wrong lens when the kids were playing in a theme park, instead of bringing my 70-200, I brought a mere nifty fifty.. What a stupid decision. Why? Because it's heavy and I know I'll walk around 15-20k steps that day and just imagining carrying those lenses will hurt my back. 

I don't want to repeat the same mistakes again and again.

Yes, the Leica SL and those zoom will break my back too. I was thinking of getting the old SL1 plus 35 cron sl. Ideally I'd want the 75 Cron SL, but it's out of my budget. 

3 hours ago, wolfewithane said:

Welcome. If you're not put off by the Q2's fixed 28mm lens, it's an excellent EDC. 

Thank you! I don't mind it. I'm used to the 35mm but sometimes I feel that a 28mm is fine too. I experienced the focal range when I brought my old Sony a7iii+28mm f2.0 combo to Japan. 

3 hours ago, PluckinTones said:

Almost a year with the Q2 here, it excels in every aspect. The 28mm lens is perfect for travel and everyday use, cropping to 35mm or 50mm is excellent. The colors are luscious, AF is great for stills, macro is superb, and battery life is fantastic. My only wish is for it to be slightly smaller.

Unless you lust after manual focus and the true rangefinder experience, the Q (especially the Q2 or Q3) is the perfect daily companion. 

Good to hear it from a long time actual user. I actually own the original Fujifilm x100, and I suppose it's going to be bigger than that? 

3 hours ago, jankap said:

You should make clear too, what kind of photos you are interested in.

I would not hesitate to buy a Q1, if that would fulfil my need. I take landscape photos and have a large pack of "old" lenses.

You mention a Q type and an M type camera. M types are different, be aware. I recommend to look at the mirror-less cameras from Canon, because you have lenses from them.

By the way, why does one think, that he needs(!) three different types of cameras? I list: Q, M and Smartphone.😗

Actually this question is what's missing from my original post above. My interest/needs. 

My needs/interest is simple actually, I just want to create a beautiful imagery of my family, take a great photos at a family events, and finally a capable travel companion that doesn't get left behind at a hotel room, or even worse, at home. 

I want to leave Canon because for me it's just boring. It doesn't inspire me to pick it up and use it daily. Even my original 10 years old Fujifilm x100 inspire me more. I originally picked it up because I thought I need a super fast and reliable Auto focus for my little kids that can't stop moving. Lately though, I realizing that during a trip or family events, I will have a lot of time to set them up and telling them to stay still and behave. So I won't need that super fast Auto focus in the end. 

-----—---------------—----------—----------—

Oh and finally, why do I even need/think about having a 2 cameras? We'll, it's because I also have another need, which is to take a beautiful(bokehlicious) portraits of my wife during events, since I love to hear her praises when I took a good picture of her. I won't be able to do that with Leica Q's 28mm lens unless I go very close to her face. Since I don't have a lot of budget, I was thinking to have the original Q type 116 for my own pleasure and interests, and Leica m240 with cheap 3rd party 50mm> lens for a portrait or semi tele needs. Why even Leica M, and not the current super computer cameras of today? It's because I don't want to repeat the same mistake again. I want a camera that's small enough, unobstructive, and most importantly, inspiring. I want a camera that I can take to a restaurant, and people don't look at me crazy when I put it on the table. I don't think there is a compact, great looking, simple camera with a 50mm> lens on the market, unless I go with the M. 

And as much as I want and lusted over the m10, somehow I feel that I will still need a "crutch" when I need to have a autofocusing camera for a quick snap or to ask for a stranger to take a Pic of my family. Giving them the m10 is surely a recipe for blurry photos! 

 

Sorry for the long reply. I appreciate the inputs so far. It has been valuable. 

[Tomokun]

2 hours ago, AdrianTurner said:

I was almost in the same position as @Tomokun except I was able to buy a new Q3.  Let me tell you why I did it.  Last year I was on a long expedition cruise to Djibouti, Saudi and a few other places and was lugging a Canon EOS 6D with a big white lens, a kit lens and a heavy wide-angle.  There was this guy, a farmer from New Zealand, who had this Leica Q2 and said he had dumped all his heavy gear a year before.  That idea kept nagging at me, I watched scores of YouTube videos, I hovered on this Forum, and then in April I went on another expedition cruise to the Amazon and West Africa with the same kit.  My wife,  by the way, had a Leica D-Lux 7 and I wondered why I needed all my old stuff.  OK, I took a few nice bird shots, but mostly I was taking landscapes and street shooting.  And in places like Guinea-Bissau you need to be discreet.  So as soon as I got back to the UK I traded in all my Canon gear, plus a Nikon I had lying around, and got the Q3.  I love it.  It looks beautiful, a work of art.  And because of its focal length limitations  I think it challenges you to be a better photographer and it has helped my aching back and shoulders.  

Hahaha great story. I had those moments too. Especially with some young girls who's just so happy to take a pictures with their tiny point and shoot. Made me think that in terms of travel enjoyment, I bet they enjoyed it more than I did! 

I also agree with the last 2 points you made. My back was certainly hurting on the last trip just last week, and the focal length nightmare is just never ending. I can totally relate. 

1 hour ago, JNK100 said:

I went for a Canon 1ds when it came out and had the 16/35 and 70/200 2.8's. 

When the later bodies versions came out I upgraded at great cost but was always happy with the set-up and results. But why did I need a pro sports camera for travel and street photography...

The turning point came in Lisbon walking uphill in the mid-day sun with nearly 5kg of equipment in holsters.

When I returned home I sold the L lenses and bought a 24/105 which I liked but I handled a Leica M9 and sold.all my Canon gear to part fund it and a 50mm 'Lux. The total change was a revelation in terms of enjoyment and also the weight difference ! This is the camera most loved but I changed it for an SL and kept the M lens. I did this as I found the SL enabled more accurate framing and on some circumstances, focus.

A heavy and larger camera though. I respected it but didn't 'love it.

For some reason I moved to Fuji XT range with a couple of zooms but couldn't resist the Q3 when it came out.

It's a camera to love and enjoy using and well as giving spectacular results. I am sure the Q2 would be similar.

I would be lying if I said I didn't hanker for a M someday for pleasure of use but the Q is keeping this temptation away.

If I was advising my 'old self' I would say go for the Q2. The SL is heavy and I would see no need for both a Q and an M.

If possible I would try and borrow/rent a Q2.

A tough decision but good luck making it!

 

 

 

Thank you for the story you told. Wow! 5kg?! Uphill with 5kgs, no thank you.. Oh my god.. I feel such a wimp because my gears was only weight 3 kgs and I already complaining. 

I will think hard about this but all signs are indeed pointing to me getting a Q, which Q, is another matter. Haha

[David Wien]

I have found that the Q3 needs different aperture settings than my Canon for the same effect, and because of this I would suggest that you rent or borrow a Q3, then experiment to discover what the 28mm lens doesnt cover. The f/1.7 lens is great for portraits, and the 60MP sensor means that you can get further away than you might think, which avoids the dreaded “big nose” effect, and crop without losing significant resolution. Yes, the Q3 is expensive, but buying it is good future proofing. If you discover situations where the Q3 does not satisfy you, because of the fixed 28mm lens, I suggest the combination of a Q2 and a small Fuji or something. I myself have a little Sony Rx100, which is no slouch and has a zoom lens. In my view, you would find the Q1’s small sensor less versatile.

David

Edited July 10, 2024 by David Wien

[PluckinTones]

26 minutes ago, Tomokun said:

Good to hear it from a long time actual user. I actually own the original Fujifilm x100, and I suppose it's going to be bigger than that? 

The Q2 lens is longer than the X100 Fujis, height and width is almost the same. If you've used the WCL or TCL on your Fuji, the size is comparable, though the Q is still heavier. However, the superior image quality makes it totally worth it for me.

[jankap]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb Tomokun:

I don't think there is a compact, great looking, simple camera with a 50mm> lens on the market, unless I go with the M. 

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-r6-vs-leica-q-typ-116

There is no comparison entry for "great looking".🫠

 

[SLamb]

31 minutes ago, David Wien said:

I have found that the Q3 needs different aperture settings than my Canon for the same effect, and because of this I would suggest that you rent or borrow a Q3, then experiment to discover what the 28mm lens doesnt cover. The f/1.7 lens is great for portraits, and the 60MP sensor means that you can get further away than you might think, which avoids the dreaded “big nose” effect, and crop without losing significant resolution. Yes, the Q3 is expensive, but buying it is good future proofing. If you discover situations where the Q3 does not satisfy you, because of the fixed 28mm lens, I suggest the combination of a Q2 and a small Fuji or something. I myself have a little Sony Rx100, which is no slouch and has a zoom lens. In my view, you would find the Q1’s small sensor less versatile.

David

I also have the Q3 and a Sony RX100 VII.  The Q3 pictures are stunning, and for a small 1" sensor camera the results form the Sony are very good indeed.  I took the Sony to Le Mans last year and got some excellent pictures of the cars on the track, using the subject tracking.  My travel kit now is the Q3 and the RX100 VII which covers all my bases for travel photography.  My Nikon Z kit and lenses are pretty much redundant now, but I still use them at home now and then as the Nikkor S line lenses are superb.

[PaulJohn]

If you go with the Q1 be aware that they are not weather sealed so a used Q1 might have dust on the sensor.

[Le Chef]

If you’re familiar with shooting a rangefinder then an M10 might be worth it. You could start with a 35mm lens and at some point add a 50 or 75mm for portraits. A two lens setup is not bad.

A Q requires you to enjoy the challenge of working within the parameters and characteristics of the 28mm lens. If you know that 28mm feels too wide, then it’s probably not the camera for you.

I have a Q3, and a CL with a handful of lenses. I only ever take out one body and one lens. I enjoy the discipline and focus of getting the most out of that one lens.

[Olaf_ZG]

I guess you need to answer following questions:

- can I do it all with a 28mm?

- do I need weatherproof?
 

based on this, you can then fine tune your choice.

[luetz]

I was in your predicament a few years ago...with assortments of camera lenses and body's to match, mainly Canon and then Fuji.  I enjoyed the journey for the most part, except the constant decision making of which body and lens(lenses) to accompany an outing or trip.  The closest I came to being content (for a while) was one body and a quality zoom lens.  The reduced carrying weight and decision making for photo outings were more satisfying....for a while.   Then a close friend at my local camera store made a suggestion of a quality single(fixed) lens camera that perhaps would better fit my style of photography....No sports(action)/ No birding(wildlife) interests / or studio work.  My main interests are along the lines of street/landscape/flowers and architectural shapes.  

His recommendation was a Leica Q2 which I have since traded for the Q3.  I am totally satisfied with the camera and have upped my enjoyment of this hobby.  (Beware there is "No perfect solution" only more questions...

[JoshuaR]

I had this dilemma several years ago. I started with a Fuji X100 series camera, then expanded to an X-Pro with a couple of primes and zooms as my family grew (my family is my main subject). But I got tired of thinking about all the gear and dissatisfied with the X-mount image quality. I sold the whole Fuji kit to get a Q2. I never thought of it was as a 28mm camera; I wanted to use the crop functionality to get 35mm and 50mm-equivalent pictures. I rented a Q2 first and confirmed that the images looked the way I wanted when cropped; I concluded that the 50mm crop actually looked better than the pictures I was getting with that FOV on Fujifilm. I ended up using the Q2 as my only camera for several years, taking 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm-type images. When I look back on the pictures, it really does look to me as though I used a variety of focal lengths. It's an incredibly versatile camera.

Eventually, however, I got tired of having only one lens, with one kind of rendering. I wanted to own a vintage lens, a modern lens, a "dreamy" lens, and so on. I also found myself using the Q2 in manual-focus mode more and more. I tried an M2, and found that I really enjoyed the rangefinder; with practice, I got really confident, to the point where I preferred to use the rangefinder in almost every situation, even unpredictable and fast-moving action with my kids. It was just more fun, and I was still getting the results I wanted. So I sold the Q2 and bought a digital M and began building a collection of M lenses.

I have only praise for the Q2, and if I'd been able to stick with it, I would've saved a lot of money compared to what I've spent on my M kit. I imagine that the Q3 is even better. From time to time I think about adding a Q back into my kit, mainly for the weather resistance, but I think I'm ultimately happier having only one camera system at a time; I find that I can use my Ms for everything, including, like, my kid's soccer games. I think only you can decide if you'll ultimately prefer an M or Q solution, or both. I think it's all about the user experience you enjoy more. Ultimately, although there will be differences between the look of the images you get from a Q2 and an M10 with 28mm and 50mm lenses, the real difference is in the experience of using the cameras.

[Ko.Fe.]

Getting Leica+Leica or Leica+NonLeica is waste of money, IMO.

Get only one camera since 

Quote

I just want to create a beautiful imagery of my family, take a great photos at a family events, and finally a capable travel companion that doesn't get left behind at a hotel room, or even worse, at home. 

Here is zero need to pay for two cameras. Especially for two different brands and used. 

But are you willing to haul one kilogram brick all the time? With expensive batteries? To me bulky, heavy cameras are in the past. I would like to have SL, but just for collecting, joy of owning, Not as everywhere tool. 

I get what you are saying about

Quote

things like looking discreet, good looking gear

Have you looked at Nikon ZF? This is the only camera, lenses which makes me think of something else rather than Leica.  

If not this one, I'll just get one Q. It takes non-Leica, normally priced batteries. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jankap]

And in case of an emergency, one can use his iPhone. Smartphones can be used as back-ups.

Question: Do photographers, who use iPhones as their main camera (2-3 lenses inside!), buy a second iPhone as a back-up?🫠

Edited July 11, 2024 by jankap