Who has made a complete swap from M to Q

[satijntje]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After the availability of a 43mm Q3, my thoughts went to make a complete swap from my Rangefinder M’s to Q.
I was thinking to replace my M10-monochrom with a Q2M and my M10-R with a Q3-43.
I have problems with exact focusing with the rangefinder and use more and more the focus peaking on the LCD screen.
I would keep my 2 analogue M cameras (M3 and MP) for sure together with a few vintage lenses from my year of birth but all the rest of the modern M lenses would have to go. 
Has anybody here maybe has the same thoughts or maybe has taken this step?
Curious to hear your thoughts.

[Advertisement]

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

[Olaf_ZG]

I do. Have a m10m next to the SL system. The latter is for studio/event work. The Q3 43 can do all the rest and will be my daily carry. I do like the m system, but the Q is weather proof, can be used single handed, has close up possibilities, leaf shutter and the tilt screen.

I know I won’t use the m a lot while having a q. The SL I want to keep because of its zooms, so this one remains. From the sales of the M, I can buy the Q and some lenses for the SL.

Thursday I go to my dealer, so I have till then to make up my mind…

[BLeventhal]

This is an interesting question, and your goal matches my intent. I, however, am an unusual case... (aren't we all  ).

I am a working nature photographer for 90% of my work. Specifically, I shoot for my own gallery, blogs, articles, and teaching. I shoot wildlife and landscapes, and am thus in need of gear that focuses faster than Leica, thus I use Nikon gear for 90%+ of my photography. However, I love Leica gear for the history, quality, and shear ease of use. I have recently tried a lot of Leica gear that includes SL (601), SL2, SL2-S, CL Digital, and M10. The M10 w/ a 35mm Asph Sum was the last piece in the series and I shot this for about 6 months alongside my Nikon gear. Most of this exploration was to see if the experience of Leica was worth the allure. While the latter was certainly true, the need for other gear to meet a project goal led me to sell off the Leica M10 and lens. 

Fast forward today, after rebuilding the bank account following a few significant sales, I decided to buy into a Leica body again. In the interim, I had been using the Nikon ZF for my non-nature related photography, as a replacement for the M10. While the camera is superior in its function and speed, it was not an M10. So I began to explore my options. I was debating between a Leica CL digital with the 23 Summicron or a Leica Q. In my search for a camera, I found a Leica Q-P in Ex condition at well known camera shop for $2300. While the camera did not come with the box/manual/baggies, after doing some research I realized that this was a good deal. The Q-P was the last in the original Q-series to be made and has the 24MP sensor that I loved in the M10. I've been using it for a while now, and realize that this body design and interface is perfect for street photography, travel vignettes, and documenting my workflow in the field. I am super excited about the camera and know it is worthy replacement for my M camera (to your point). Finally, I only wish that a Q-Monochrome was available. I do not think the Q2-Mono is worth the current asking price or that I need that many pixels for street photography. I know people crave those high resolution cameras, but nearly every Leica shooter I know never makes a picture larger than 24 x 20, and 24MP is more than sufficient for that output size. 

If the Q3 43 (or Q2/3 mono)  were not so cost prohibitive, I'd add one to my bag and use the two whenever I'm intending to do street work, until these options become more affordable, I will plod along with my Q-P and know that it is a good match for my travel & street goals.

(sorry for the long response)

bruce

[Smogg]

2 hours ago, satijntje said:

After the availability of a 43mm Q3, my thoughts went to make a complete swap from my Rangefinder M’s to Q.
I was thinking to replace my M10-monochrom with a Q2M and my M10-R with a Q3-43.
I have problems with exact focusing with the rangefinder and use more and more the focus peaking on the LCD screen.
I would keep my 2 analogue M cameras (M3 and MP) for sure together with a few vintage lenses from my year of birth but all the rest of the modern M lenses would have to go. 
Has anybody here maybe has the same thoughts or maybe has taken this step?
Curious to hear your thoughts.

If you don't use a rangefinder for focusing, you'll like it, otherwise you'll regret it. If you often shoot wide open, you'll find it easier with the Q3 43

[Smogg]

In my opinion, the M camera pushes you to go out and shoot more than any other.

[Olaf_ZG]

1 hour ago, Smogg said:

In my opinion, the M camera pushes you to go out and shoot more than any other.

I have the same with the Q. 

[rwbowman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As someone with Parkinsonism my ability to make sharp images is affected by the tremors in my hands. I've thought of selling my M cameras and lenses and going the Q route. But not knowing if the image stabilization of the Qs would help me very much, I hesitate.

[ianforber]

I’ve sold my M11 and it’s 35mm and 50mm lenses. I just didn’t take better pictures with it and it tended to stay in its bag for weeks before I forced myself to use it instead of my Q2. It’s not that I didn’t enjoy using it, just not enough to warrant keeping it. Sticking with my Q2. 

[Tseg]

Well, like others not on this thread, I'm going the other direction... Adding the M11-D to my Q3 43.   I absolutely see the value in having a Q for a lot of different situations.  I've been a fixed lens, full-frame 1 camera user for a long time.   The concept mentally prepared me to sell off all my ICL equipment (it was Sony at the time).  I lasted a decade without having to carry around a bag of lenses.   But in this age where all the camera manufacturers are developing AI laden equipment I am drawn to the old school rangefinder manual skillset.  I found myself using the Q in complete manual mode and said to myself if I'm doing it with the Q, I may enjoy the process even a bit more with the M (? - still on backorder, so I have yet to prove my theory).  I'm definitely more about the experience of photographing than the result... but a great result is still rewarding.  I really should be buying a Leica film camera but I'm less about the printed photograph scene, at least for now.  Maybe that ends up being next on my journey?

[markie linhart]

From M8 to Q1 some time back and never happier. One thing I miss, though, is that shutter sound 🥹hard to replicate with a lovely leaf shutter

[LanceR]

@satijntje I made this exact transition from M to Q, with an SL stopover.  I had an M11 and it ranks as my all time favorite camera.  I loved the rangefinder and the lenses were spectacular.  Then aging eyes set in and increasingly I struggled to detect the contrast differences in the focus patch.

I initially moved to an SL3, with the idea of continuing to use my M lenses.  The SL3 is a great camera, but I have yet to really enjoy the shooting experience with it.  I added some SL lenses, but I just do not like the bulk.

Then the Q3 43 landed.  With my M11, I used a 35mm APO as my go everywhere lens and I used the 50mm Summilux as my fine art and portrait lens.  All of that to say that the 43mm APO sits right in my sweet spot for focal length.

Shooting with the Q3 43 feels natural to me.  For me it is all about the shooting experience, as all of these cameras are competent.

Is it an M, no.  However, if the 43mm focal length works for your photography, it is about as close as you can get, in my experience.

[LocalHero1953]

I have migrated from the M to the Q, but over a number of years. My last digital M was the M240. I was irritated when the M10 launched because they removed video (useful for the occasional clip) and didn't add a silent electronic shutter (for photography of intimate music performances) - I felt the M line was becoming the heritage line. I ended up with both CL and SL: the CL for casual, social and travel, and the SL for purposeful photographic sessions (portrait, theatre/music/dance etc). When the CL was discontinued I switched to the Q2 (the CL was still fine, but I thought used prices would drop and wanted to recover some cost).

I now have the Q3 43 and SL2-S, for much the same reasons I had the CL and SL. The Q3 43 is catching up with the SL2-S in low light, however, so the Q3 43 can cover much of what I might otherwise use the SL2-S and 24-90SL for; it can't replace the 90-280SL and primes though.

I have also acquired a M4 and new MP for when my mind just isn't up to the speed of the modern world (and I have large format cameras for when I leave the modern world behind). The M4 was a guilt purchase because I sold my M2 when I bought my first digital, the M9.

Frankly I think the Q concept is a modern classic, a design of genius - if it was discontinued tomorrow, it would, of course, immediately be recognised as such. It does almost all that a digital M can do in its traditional focal length range (the Q3 28 corresponding to the M2 and the Q3 43 to the M3), with the modern functions that are expected today: AF (could be better), weather sealing, image stabilisation, 'macro' (it's really just close-up), tilt screen, video (within limits), near-silent and totally silent shutters, high speed flash sync and a high resolution sensor. On top of that it has two cracking lenses, and a wonderful interface that allows you to switch from full P&S mode to full manual by intuitively turning the traditional aperture or focus rings or shutter dial (I expect an ISO dial to appear in a future iteration).

The Q is the true digital successor to the film M, in that it fills the same market niche: a small, high quality camera, with a simple but complete user interface and a strong design aesthetic. The digital M is in a heritage dead end, supported by its history.

I don't suppose everyone will agree with me.

Edited November 14, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Markey]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I have migrated from the M to the Q, but over a number of years. My last digital M was the M240. I was irritated when the M10 launched because they removed video (useful for the occasional clip) and didn't add a silent electronic shutter (for photography of intimate music performances) - I felt the M line was becoming the heritage line. I ended up with both CL and SL: the CL for casual, social and travel, and the SL for purposeful photographic sessions (portrait, theatre/music/dance etc). When the CL was discontinued I switched to the Q2 (the CL was still fine, but I thought used prices would drop and wanted to recover some cost).

I now have the Q3 43 and SL2-S, for much the same reasons I had the CL and SL. The Q3 43 is catching up with the SL2-S in low light, however, so the Q3 43 can cover much of what I might otherwise use the SL2-S and 24-90SL for; it can't replace the 90-280SL and primes though.

I have also acquired a M4 and new MP for when my mind just isn't up to the speed of the modern world (and I have large format cameras for when I leave the modern world behind). The M4 was a guilt purchase because I sold my M2 when I bought my first digital, the M9.

Frankly I think the Q concept is a modern classic, a design of genius - if it was discontinued tomorrow, it would, of course, immediately be recognised as such. It does almost all that a digital M can do in its traditional focal length range (the Q3 28 corresponding to the M2 and the Q3 43 to the M3), with the modern functions that are expected today: AF (could be better), weather sealing, image stabilisation, 'macro' (it's really just close-up), tilt screen, video (within limits), near-silent and totally silent shutters, high speed flash sync and a high resolution sensor. On top of that it has two cracking lenses, and a wonderful interface that allows you to switch from full P&S mode to full manual by intuitively turning the traditional ring or dial (I expect an ISO dial to appear in a future iteration).

The Q is the true digital successor to the film M, in that it fills the same market niche: a small, high quality camera, with a simple but complete user interface and a strong design aesthetic. The digital M is in a heritage dead end, supported by its history.

I don't suppose everyone will agree with me.

After nearly 40 years I`m heading the same way although I intend to keep my 246 and BP M4. So its CL and SL2s ( for the equestrian stuff) with the 246 for occasional use.

I`ll be looking to the Q43 to replace the CL and provide a lighter weight colour option to the SL2s.

At any rate that`s the current intention.

Re the monochrome side I`ll have to do some digging as to how the Q2M stacks up to the 246 as regards image quality.

I totally agree with your conclusion by the way.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Markey

[Steve Ash]

You have happily moved through almost the entire Leica range so far. Is it a bad idea for you to think about whether or not to change this approach? .

[Olaf_ZG]

Today I made the step. Traded in my m and all m-mount lenses for a new Q and a SL21mm.

Cant imagine the Q would be my only camera, as the SL offers a better reach, but it made the m redundant for me.

@LocalHero1953is spot on with his remark in post 12.

[alftan]

I went from M to adapting my M lenses on a Sony a7, then to the Q. 

[Cogito]

11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

(I expect an ISO dial to appear in a future iteration)

not *exactly* the same, but I mapped the thumbwheel to ISO, (remapped exposure compensation to thumbwheel button) makes a pretty good approximation of an ISO dial.

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, Cogito said:

not *exactly* the same, but I mapped the thumbwheel to ISO, (remapped exposure compensation to thumbwheel button) makes a pretty good approximation of an ISO dial.

Yes, one can do that (I do), but the Q uses real labelled dials, not virtual dials, for the main exposure controls. I expect something like the dial introduced with the M10. 
We shall see.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Smogg]

On 11/14/2024 at 6:49 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

I have migrated from the M to the Q, but over a number of years. My last digital M was the M240. I was irritated when the M10 launched because they removed video (useful for the occasional clip) and didn't add a silent electronic shutter (for photography of intimate music performances) - I felt the M line was becoming the heritage line. I ended up with both CL and SL: the CL for casual, social and travel, and the SL for purposeful photographic sessions (portrait, theatre/music/dance etc). When the CL was discontinued I switched to the Q2 (the CL was still fine, but I thought used prices would drop and wanted to recover some cost).

I now have the Q3 43 and SL2-S, for much the same reasons I had the CL and SL. The Q3 43 is catching up with the SL2-S in low light, however, so the Q3 43 can cover much of what I might otherwise use the SL2-S and 24-90SL for; it can't replace the 90-280SL and primes though.

I have also acquired a M4 and new MP for when my mind just isn't up to the speed of the modern world (and I have large format cameras for when I leave the modern world behind). The M4 was a guilt purchase because I sold my M2 when I bought my first digital, the M9.

Frankly I think the Q concept is a modern classic, a design of genius - if it was discontinued tomorrow, it would, of course, immediately be recognised as such. It does almost all that a digital M can do in its traditional focal length range (the Q3 28 corresponding to the M2 and the Q3 43 to the M3), with the modern functions that are expected today: AF (could be better), weather sealing, image stabilisation, 'macro' (it's really just close-up), tilt screen, video (within limits), near-silent and totally silent shutters, high speed flash sync and a high resolution sensor. On top of that it has two cracking lenses, and a wonderful interface that allows you to switch from full P&S mode to full manual by intuitively turning the traditional aperture or focus rings or shutter dial (I expect an ISO dial to appear in a future iteration).

The Q is the true digital successor to the film M, in that it fills the same market niche: a small, high quality camera, with a simple but complete user interface and a strong design aesthetic. The digital M is in a heritage dead end, supported by its history.

I don't suppose everyone will agree with me.

I beg to differ. I like the lens, the file quality and color on the Q3 43, but usually my resulting photos are much weaker than with the M11. With the Q3 43 I think less about composition and I really miss the clear (without distorted colors and contrasts) view through the glass at the world and of course I miss the rangefinder frame, which makes it much easier to find the best composition. Therefore, for me the Q3 and Q3 43 are pure rainy weather cameras, when it is risky to take the M11 and when I need to operate the camera with one hand, since I have an umbrella in the other.

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

I beg to differ. I like the lens, the file quality and color on the Q3 43, but usually my resulting photos are much weaker than with the M11. With the Q3 43 I think less about composition and I really miss the clear (without distorted colors and contrasts) view through the glass at the world and of course I miss the rangefinder frame, which makes it much easier to find the best composition. Therefore, for me the Q3 and Q3 43 are pure rainy weather cameras, when it is risky to take the M11 and when I need to operate the camera with one hand, since I have an umbrella in the other.

I'm sure Leica had the rangefinder frames in mind when they designed the Q with its crop frames. After all, it allows you to 'see outside the frame' as many people say about the rangefinder. An upgrade option for the current Q would be to make the crops fill the screen. While I agree that there is something irreplaceable about a clear optical VF, given that the Q will never have one, I wish they would exploit the EVF tech to give us a WYSIWYG view. I'm sure this is possible with a firmware upgrade (but there you are - I'm a geologist - I hit rocks with a hammer for a living).