Original Q

[bobtodrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Phoblographer has an excellent article on why the original Q is still a viable camera

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2025/03/24/8-reasons-why-the-leica-q-is-perfect-for-photography-today/

[Leicaboy Norway]

14 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

The Phoblographer has an excellent article on why the original Q is still a viable camera

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2025/03/24/8-reasons-why-the-leica-q-is-perfect-for-photography-today/

You really think so? 

I think it was quite basic and that site I almost get a headache reading anything on that site with all those ads, which also makes me think this is just something they caugh up to get some fast ad income on a new article.

They even end with saying a Leica camera never loses its value. Well here in Norway you can now get a Leica SL2 for $2200. They're still being sold new at $7700 I think.

On a more positive side:

 

I still have the camera and I think it is a great camera. AF is pretty good, I like it in low light. Controls and build quality are as solid as they are intuitive. It's still small and great as a do it all camera. It is also the prettiest camera I've ever seen, which is ridiculous to some to care about but for me I love a good looking camera

 

[bobtodrick]

19 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

You really think so? 

I think it was quite basic and that site I almost get a headache reading anything on that site with all those ads, which also makes me think this is just something they caugh up to get some fast ad income on a new article.

They even end with saying a Leica camera never loses its value. Well here in Norway you can now get a Leica SL2 for $2200. They're still being sold new at $7700 I think.

On a more positive side:

 

I still have the camera and I think it is a great camera. AF is pretty good, I like it in low light. Controls and build quality are as solid as they are intuitive. It's still small and great as a do it all camera. It is also the prettiest camera I've ever seen, which is ridiculous to some to care about but for me I love a good looking camera

 

I will definitely grant you that if you don’t subscribe they have a TON of ads.  That said they are quite respected.

As to value, I don’t know about the SL series…I would think it doesn’t hold its value because there are so many cameras that compete with it.

But I bought my Q five years ago used for $3500.  That’s what one in good shape will fetch today.  Couldn’t say that about my previous Nikon DSLR’s.

[Dazzajl]

I agree on the horrid looking site and the ‘review’ feels like an un proofread AI effort. Doesn’t make me covet the original Q any less though. It’s still the only one of the four that really appeals to me 

[Leicaboy Norway]

2 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

I agree on the horrid looking site and the ‘review’ feels like an un proofread AI effort. Doesn’t make me covet the original Q any less though. It’s still the only one of the four that really appeals to me 

 

2 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

I will definitely grant you that if you don’t subscribe they have a TON of ads.  That said they are quite respected.

As to value, I don’t know about the SL series…I would think it doesn’t hold its value because there are so many cameras that compete with it.

But I bought my Q five years ago used for $3500.  That’s what one in good shape will fetch today.  Couldn’t say that about my previous Nikon DSLR’s.

 

Yes, but the SL is also a Leica camera

I think you are right in that the Qs hold up better in value, but also that you got in at the right time. 

 

I had the Q3 43 for a few weeks before selling it again. The original Q feels more snappy and better suited for the fixed lens camera it is. Strangely even the AF seemed better except for tracking and such. My Q3 43 hunted a lot. So much for the AF revolution that phase detection was going to bring with it :(

[bobtodrick]

16 minutes ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

 

 

Yes, but the SL is also a Leica camera

I think you are right in that the Qs hold up better in value, but also that you got in at the right time. 

 

I had the Q3 43 for a few weeks before selling it again. The original Q feels more snappy and better suited for the fixed lens camera it is. Strangely even the AF seemed better except for tracking and such. My Q3 43 hunted a lot. So much for the AF revolution that phase detection was going to bring with it

I have to agree with you...at least for my needs I see no reason to 'upgrade' from my Q.  It suits what I require perfectly.

[PhotoCruiser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first Q was a first series Q and i used her for about 3 months during a road trip and took many photos with her.
Then i could find a Leica Store who had the brand new Q2 and i traded in the Q and got the Q2.
As it was back in August 2019 i don't remember all details, but i found the upgrade to the Q2 well worth the money.
Picture quality and the much better viewfinder is what i remember for sure, but a slightly used Q is certainly a bargain for around 1500-2000 CHF
I paid 2019 about 5500 for my Q2 and could sell her today for about 3500, but i will never sell her, nor upgrade to the Q3.
Chris

[Olaf_ZG]

I liked the Q more than the Q2, except for one thing which was/is the dealbreaker to me: weather proofing.

Now, having the Q43, I am very happy with its evolution…