Anything I should know about the Q2?

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings. 

I've used various Leicas before from the M and X lines (and, many moons ago, the Digilux 2), but never yet a Q. I've come across a seller (online) with a near-spotless feedback record who's offering an aesthetically substandard (lots of scratches and so on), but (apparently) perfectly functioning, Q2 for a very good price; not so cheap that it seems fishy, but very reasonable given the condition he describes. I'm not bothered about the external appearance; if anything it makes it less of a target for Bad People.

I like the idea of the Q2 over the Q for two main reasons: shouldn't be an issue with dust, and the extra resolution is nice for the crop modes.

However, if there's anything on the potentially negative side that I should be aware of before pulling the trigger on the sale, I figured that this would be the place to ask.

All ideas received gratefully.

[Advertisement]

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

[Chris W]

It's going to be hard to sell on should you not be satisfied or tire of the camera in a few years.

Although I am often happy to buy slightly less than perfect used items instead of brand new, I think a heavily scuffed and scratched camera means two things, either the camera has been heavily used (could be an issue of components starting to fail), or the owner didn't care about the camera and didn't look after it.

[jaapv]

I would only buy such camera through a reputable dealer. I am generally happy to pay dealer premium including warranty

[jaapv]

27 minutes ago, Chris W said:

It's going to be hard to sell on should you not be satisfied or tire of the camera in a few years.

Although I am often happy to buy slightly less than perfect used items instead of brand new, I think a heavily scuffed and scratched camera means two things, either the camera has been heavily used (could be an issue of components starting to fail), or the owner didn't care about the camera and didn't look after it.

But if a camera is pristine, why did the owner not use it? There could be something basically wrong with it and he is selling the trouble on.

[Me Leica!]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I would only buy such camera through a reputable dealer.

Just after you mentioned this, I found another Q2 for sale, this time from a long established local camera store. A little more expensive than the one I referenced, but it will at least come with a guarantee...

[Chris W]

59 minutes ago, jaapv said:

But if a camera is pristine, why did the owner not use it? 

Selling because they've bought a Q3, or gone to Medium Format. Any number of reasons.

I often buy slightly used cameras and lenses, with a few marks, signs of use. I would likely avoid something heavily worn.

[JNK100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Me Leica! said:

Just after you mentioned this, I found another Q2 for sale, this time from a long established local camera store. A little more expensive than the one I referenced, but it will at least come with a guarantee...

That would be a better option in my view.

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

But if a camera is pristine, why did the owner not use it? There could be something basically wrong with it and he is selling the trouble on.

The SL2 i bought in the Leica Store in Zurich was in a absolutely new conditions and they said that ex owner took about 50 photos with it and then switched to the SL3.
Maybe a fairytale from the Leica Store Owner, however the camera is like new out of the box, not the slightest micro scratch and working perfect in any case.
Some Leica owners don't mind about spending big money to have the latest and best and don't use the camera a lot either, at least in Switzerland.

 

vor 4 Stunden schrieb JNK100:

That would be a better option in my view.

Yep, that is what i did and i did not regret it at all, extra cost from Leica Store was about 500$ over private seller, so acceptable for me.

 

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Me Leica!:

I like the idea of the Q2 over the Q for two main reasons: shouldn't be an issue with dust, and the extra resolution is nice for the crop modes.

Thats a good reason, i had first the Q and liked it but 3 months later i could get one of the first Q2 and then realized how much superior she is.
The Q series are awesome cameras, but some hate them and resell as they can't adapt to having a non changeable WA lens and i agree it need some practice and open mind to get used to that for some. Others like me love that concept and consider the Q series as one of / the best travel and every day camera.

Chris

[Chris W]

22 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:

and i agree it need some practice and open mind to get used to that for some. 

Chris

Experienced photographers say you should fill the frame with interest. I read that all the time.

It is in fact hard with a wide 28mm and I see a lot of keen 28mm shooters with a point or two of interest (the subject matter) and half the frame just blank... maybe sky, or confusing, distracting trees or bush. I don't think there is any bias against the Q lens, just an understanding that 28mm is harder than 35 and 50mm in some people's opinion.

Edited March 31 by Chris W

[PhotoCruiser]

My most used lenses are 28mm town to 14mm and only for macro work the 105mm Macro, so the 28MM from my Q2 is just perfect, but suboptimal for people who are used to shot 50mm or particularly with zoom lenses.
The sharp 28mm and high resolution give me the possibility to crop when editing if the 28mm are too wide and confusing stuff is on the photo, some times i nail it and no cropping is needed, sometimes i miss it or the circumstances don't allow me to go nearer.
There are many treads here from Q series owners feeling uncomfortable with the 28mm and from the beginning the demand for a longer lens was high, till Leica presented toe Q3 with the 43mm to make them happy.

Chris

[Me Leica!]

Some good answers here, thanks to everyone who responded so far.

I used to shoot with an iPhone a lot, and that has a main camera which works out at more or less 28mm, so the focal length isn't such an issue (and when you have 47mp, then cropping, if done with purpose and not out of laziness, is also an option). I would intend to have another focal length with me, something longer, as well, to cover more ground, so once my bank account has recovered from the Q2 I'd be considering something like an M or SL with a longer prime. (I hate changing lenses, and that's another attraction with the Q...)

[Chris W]

Would be more hassle to carry two camera systems just to add a different focal length. If you have plans to get an M or SL, I think that would be a better starting point than buying a Q first. When I bought my first M I only had a 35mm f2 lens for the first two years.

[PhotoCruiser]

As Chris W wrote,

if you already plan to get a M or SL than you may waste money with the Q2 except you can afford to have 2 Leicas and haul around a lot of gear but if you want a small, very capable camera for travelling light or carry everywhere then the Q2 is perfect
The Q series is a very nice small and light camera, much less than a M/SL2 with a 28mm and a longer lens and that makes the Q series perfect to have her with you every day and everywhere. But she does not really soo well for 50mm+, doable but a 100mm lens does much better than a high 28mm crop.
if a longer lens is a must then you may get a SL2 and one of the excellent Leica or Sigma zoom lenses covering WA up to 105mm what makes them a very nice everyday lens.
But it will be bulky and heavy, i have a Q2 and a SL2 with 3 lenses and there is night and day in size and weight.
Chris

Edited April 1 by PhotoCruiser

[jaapv]

18 hours ago, Chris W said:

Experienced photographers say you should fill the frame with interest. I read that all the time.

It is in fact hard with a wide 28mm and I see a lot of keen 28mm shooters with a point or two of interest (the subject matter) and half the frame just blank... maybe sky, or confusing, distracting trees or bush. I don't think there is any bias against the Q lens, just an understanding that 28mm is harder than 35 and 50mm in some people's opinion.

Until one understands that the Q cameras are not specifically meant to shoot everything @28 mm.  It is perfectly analogous to a camera with a 28-70 mm zoom. Nobody would use it @28 100% of the time.

[Chris W]

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Until one understands that the Q cameras are not specifically meant to shoot everything @28 mm.  It is perfectly analogous to a camera with a 28-70 mm zoom. Nobody would use it @28 100% of the time.

Sure, that's only relevant from the Q2 onwards. With the OG Q you were stuck with 28mm most of the time. Also, my point was that people really celebrate 28mm, and are dedicated to that field of view. It is trendy. But many professionals think 28mm is harder to use than the old fashioned 35mm and 50mm because there is so much more in the image you need to think about.

[goldgranada]

The Q2 was my first venture into the Leica world of cameras. I've thoroughly enjoyed the camera and since transitioned into the newer Q3 series, which by the way also uses the same batteries. Q2 batteries being slightly less powered than the newer ones but both usable in these two cameras. With the cost of batteries at $200 each that's a bonus.Buying a gently used Q2 perhaps might gain you the extra batteries, as they came with mine. I still enjoy the Q2 as much as the newer Q3 versions I own and it's great opportunity to buy into the Leica Q-line at generally a significantly reduced cost.

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, Chris W said:

Sure, that's only relevant from the Q2 onwards. With the OG Q you were stuck with 28mm most of the time. Also, my point was that people really celebrate 28mm, and are dedicated to that field of view. It is trendy. But many professionals think 28mm is harder to use than the old fashioned 35mm and 50mm because there is so much more in the image you need to think about.

For the use that the Q is intended for -and used for judging by the image threads- 10 MP is ample. No way are you stuck on a  28 mm AOV. 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Chris W:

But many professionals think 28mm is harder to use than the old fashioned 35mm and 50mm because there is so much more in the image you need to think about.

This is a very generic statement.
Many professional Landscape and architectural/Indoor photographers will say that 28mm is loo narrow.
It has absolutely nothing to do if professional or not, the point of 28mm is what you photograph, good for some but too wide for other.

A big part of the final result of a photo is certainly composition,
but it was common to crop (to a limit) in the dark room, now with high resolution and computer it can be cropped much more simple and in much higher quality.
And it's is always and still nowadays the same: What is not on film/sensor is lost, what is too much on film/sensor can be cropped away.

I am fine with whoever likes the Q3 43mm over the 28mm version, i schot many many years 50mm in analog times but from many years now i enjoy to shoot very wide (actually 14-28mm) and for this reason i personally like the 28mm as it is the right length for what i photograph.

Chris

Edited April 2 by PhotoCruiser

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Chris W]

Hardly anyone is using their Q for landscape and architecture. It is a popular every day and street photography camera. And yes, the majority of images you see (mostly amateurs) have large expanses of dead content in the frame.

And yes, many great photographers who teach will tell you that 28mm is harder to use than 35 or 50, because of the importance of everything in the frame counting.

[Stephen_C]

58 minutes ago, Chris W said:

Hardly anyone is using their Q for landscape

I'm not at all sure that's correct. I've done a lot of landscape work with the Q series (Q, Q2 and now Q3) and, in my view, it's superb for that sort of work. There are also a lot of other good examples of Q series landscape photography on the relevant photo threads on this forum so I don't think I'm the only one!

Stephen