Does the Q2/Q3 feel like an M when holding it?

[DS Jones]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand this is probably the most idiotic question ever but...it's important to me.

I live (retired) in Baja Mexico so there's no way to try/hold one of the Qs unless I drove up to Beverly Hills. A week ago I had to sell my lifelong dream of a camera, the Leica M10R due to my history of Multiple Sclerosis rearing its ugly head the last several months. My eyesight, instability in walking/standing which I liken to having tremors in the hand while holding the camera and my cognitive/memory have all taken a hit. Thus I made the heartbreaking decision to sell my M.

I think I could get along with a Q though. My wife has the digital CL and I've been using it the last several days. Excellent camera but it just doesn't *feel* like an M. I don't like how it fits in my hand, or doesn't fit. It's too small for me. I'm left with the Q2 or Q3.

So my question is for any current owners of Qs who also have or had an M, are they similar when holding? The heft, the weight distribution, the actual tactile feel of the body...dare I say does it feel as magical holding a Q as it does with an M?

Thank you all for any input and guidance.

DJones

[DavidVGL]

DSJones, not an idiotic question at all and I can only answer part of it. Although I do not have MS I do have ailments (I’m 90 y.o.) that have limited many of the actions I have enjoyed over time. So, I cannot compare any Q to any M. My Q2 was my first Q, sold that last year. I  bought the Q3 43 for its focal length and hoping that its stabilization was an improvement over the Q2. It’s not. I use a cane to walk and I have a tremor. Only two of the factors limiting making successful photos. I can carry a very light weight tripod for short distances but all in all any spontaneity I used to have I have lost. So, what to do?  I “up” the ISO, I find a place to lean, look for stationery subjects, carry only the camera and an extra battery to decrease the weight. My photography is too important to my well being to give it up. So, I improvise.

An M. I would love one but without auto focus it’s a no go. I can’t answer that part of your question .

What I suggest is keep using your wife’s CL until you can overcome or accept the limitations. Then go Q. I am so happy with this camera and its output I ain’t never gonna look back. 

Hoping that helps.

David

[zlatkob]

I don't have an M currently, but that's a good question. I'd say the Q is probably "similar enough". The Q has a very M-like shape, very M-inspired, but it's different enough that you wouldn't mistake it for an M. The viewfinder, thumb notch, and fixed lens immediately show that it's a different beast. The Q is the most M-like autofocus camera, so it's more M-like than any Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Fujifilm, etc. So if you want autofocus in an M-like body, it is the way to go. But is it as "magical holding"? That's hard to say!

[JoshuaR]

First of all, my sympathies on having to sell your M10-R!

Having shot both Q and M cameras a lot, I'd say that the Q is close. It's lighter than an M10-R, which is nice. The lens pokes out more. Overall, I feel that it's a pretty 'magical' camera, not unlike an M. The only other digital camera I've enjoyed using as much is the Fujifilm X-Pro3. 

[ravinj]

2 hours ago, DS Jones said:

So my question is for any current owners of Qs who also have or had an M, are they similar when holding? The heft, the weight distribution, the actual tactile feel of the body...dare I say does it feel as magical holding a Q as it does with an M?

Different tactile feel, but not in a bad way. If you are referring to holding the Q and feeling that it is a quality piece of equipment, then yes, it has that heft and that "feel". For reference, I have used / owned M9, M240, M10, M10-R and M11. As well as Q, Q2, Q3 (28 and 43). 

Any of the Q variants including the original 24MP Q should work well for you with no compromise in "feel" or IQ. Optical stabilization is pretty good and that can help with the shakiness to some degree.

While the Q has focus by wire, the implementation is very good as the manual focus mode gives that feeling of a true manual lens. Not as good as the M lens manual focus but likely the best I have used in an auto-focus lens of this size. 

[dbeids]

I too have used M cameras including an M10-r so I understand your disappointment. I am going to sell them.  My eyesight isn’t what it once was and decided to try a Q3 43. 
The Q is lighter but has a similar form factor. It is also tremendous fun and much quicker (on autofocus) than my using a rangefinder these days. I love the Q. I’m happy that I got to use Ms for decades, but the Q is great too. 

[stuny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At  least on the original Q, the on/off/multiple photos switch is small and stiff, difficult to always turn on to just single shot.  Otherwise, probably a good choice for you.

[o2mpx]

Similar...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[JohnW.]

3 hours ago, stuny said:

At  least on the original Q, the on/off/multiple photos switch is small and stiff, difficult to always turn on to just single shot.  Otherwise, probably a good choice for you.

Perhaps a service is in order? My Q was also getting a bit stiff, so I took it into a local authorized Leica agent.  They fixed it the same day and it is now smooth with definite stops at each setting. 

[LocalHero1953]

I have owned CL, digital M, film M, Q2, and now have film M and Q3 43. I liked the CL, but it is lighter and feels much smaller than a M. The Q2 and Q3 43 have a similar weight/heft in the hand to a M, but it is noticeably shorter side to side. If you measure quality by weight and the feel of cold metal then it feels the same quality as a M, and the dials etc are all similar in feel. If you have trouble with your fingers now, then you should be aware that switching from AF to MF is not easy - it requires a bit of sensitivity in the finger tips to release the lock on the focusing ring - it's not at all the same as the push button infinity lock on older M lenses. Switching from normal to macro is easier, but again might be not so simple if you have trouble with finger tip sensitivity.

As for the lens protrusion, it is not really different from a modern Summilux on a M body (IMO).

[JNK100]

I would say that a Q is certainly the closest AF camera one can get to an M : no question.

It feels not similar in the hand : overall perhaps halfway between a CL and a Q.

In your position, I would not hesitate to get a Q.

[thierry40]

9 hours ago, DS Jones said:

I understand this is probably the most idiotic question ever but...it's important to me.

I live (retired) in Baja Mexico so there's no way to try/hold one of the Qs unless I drove up to Beverly Hills. A week ago I had to sell my lifelong dream of a camera, the Leica M10R due to my history of Multiple Sclerosis rearing its ugly head the last several months. My eyesight, instability in walking/standing which I liken to having tremors in the hand while holding the camera and my cognitive/memory have all taken a hit. Thus I made the heartbreaking decision to sell my M.

I think I could get along with a Q though. My wife has the digital CL and I've been using it the last several days. Excellent camera but it just doesn't *feel* like an M. I don't like how it fits in my hand, or doesn't fit. It's too small for me. I'm left with the Q2 or Q3.

So my question is for any current owners of Qs who also have or had an M, are they similar when holding? The heft, the weight distribution, the actual tactile feel of the body...dare I say does it feel as magical holding a Q as it does with an M?

Thank you all for any input and guidance.

DJones

It doesn’t feel the exactly the same as a touch wider and shorter but … it feels very very similar because of the weight and construction.
The shutter sound is not the same but is this so important vs your need for taking photos ?
So, if I read you well here and elsewhere in this forum, go for it, get the Q2 or 3 without a doubt. 

AF and IBIS will help you keep your passion going which is the most important point. 

everyday go for it 

best 
 

 

[evikne]

There are lots of rumors about an “EVF-M”. No one knows for sure yet when it will arrive, but it's pretty certain that it will, and probably pretty soon. No smoke without fire. It will probably be very similar to a “real” M. It probably won't have any autofocus, but the big question is really how the manual focus works; how focus is confirmed in the viewfinder.

If you can wait and see how it turns out, this might be a solution for you.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I used M rangefinders for many years but eventually had to admit that my eyesight was not was it was, I could no longer reliably focus with the rangefinder. I switched to Nikon Z7 bodies about five years ago using Z AF lenses and MF Voigtlander lenses and the switch has been very successful. The option of autofocus and image stabilisation has helped me tremendously and I now wouldn't want to be without either.

Last year I added the long awaited Leica Q3 43, since when it has become my all time favourite walk around camera. Yes, it does feel like an M in the hand, but the focus lock between AF and Manual focusing is not easy to use for those with loss of mobility or sensitivity in the hands.

That apart it is simply the most fun I've had with camera in hand!

Good shooting to you.

[NigelG]

IMHO it depends on what focal length you preferred on the M and your OVF/EVF preference.

If you want to keep an OVF, interchangeable lenses and get AF I think you should step out of the LeicaWorld and look at the Fuji X-Pro line (I kept to the X-pro 2 as the 3 downgraded the VF imho.)

I now have a Q1 for when I’m not using an M, but the X-pros in my closet are probably a better “match” handling wise as an AF alternative to an M, and the original XF 35 f1.4 makes a nice “kid-yourself-it’s-a-50-Lux-but-it’s-not-really”option.

Similar size to an M but a bit lighter and also weatherproof (and many of the lenses too)…but also “not a Leica” if that’s an issue (if the CL is ok I’m assuming APS-C is not a problem). Build quality/reliability is high.

I bought mine “on the way” to the M…but have kept them and have occasionally used them in combination with an M when travelling (though pre Q)

 

 

Edited May 29 by NigelG

[ianforber]

21 hours ago, DS Jones said:

I understand this is probably the most idiotic question ever but...it's important to me.

I live (retired) in Baja Mexico so there's no way to try/hold one of the Qs unless I drove up to Beverly Hills. A week ago I had to sell my lifelong dream of a camera, the Leica M10R due to my history of Multiple Sclerosis rearing its ugly head the last several months. My eyesight, instability in walking/standing which I liken to having tremors in the hand while holding the camera and my cognitive/memory have all taken a hit. Thus I made the heartbreaking decision to sell my M.

I think I could get along with a Q though. My wife has the digital CL and I've been using it the last several days. Excellent camera but it just doesn't *feel* like an M. I don't like how it fits in my hand, or doesn't fit. It's too small for me. I'm left with the Q2 or Q3.

So my question is for any current owners of Qs who also have or had an M, are they similar when holding? The heft, the weight distribution, the actual tactile feel of the body...dare I say does it feel as magical holding a Q as it does with an M?

Thank you all for any input and guidance.

DJones

I had an M11 and a Q2. The M has far more heft but the Q2 has similar handling, especially with an almost identical menu system. I sold the M11 because I prefer using the Q2. I haven’t felt holding a camera magical though since I sold my Mamiya 7!
 

Nothing as serious as your condition but I take medication that induces a minor tremble in my left hand. Not always and not that extreme but enough for me to notice it. Using the Q2 with a half case (Lim's) with a decent grip to supplement its OIS lets me consistently get 1/15s shots. On a very good day, braced against a solid wall I can sometimes get 1s. If you can get a Q3 it’s probably worth it because it’s high ISO performance will be better than the Q2, allowing you to use higher ISO to keep fast shutter speeds to help combat hand shake. 

[Jeff S]

I own the M10-R (and M10M) as well, and have only briefly held the Q3-43, one from a friend and another at a dealer. I use the Leica thumb rest on both Ms (don’t use hot shoe/EVF), and found that having one on the Q adds similar stability.  An additional hand grip might also benefit, but I haven’t tried.

Of course, using RF and using EVF with AF, focus aids and OIS is a different beast.  With mild hand tremors and deteriorating eyesight, I fortunately can still use my M system effectively, but there’s no doubt that my SL2 (with IBIS and zoom with OIS) yields superb files with greater reliability, and is weather sealed. I suspect that the Q would provide similar benefits, in a lighter and more compact package, but 2 systems are enough for me now.

[Kim Dahl]

I have a Q3 and a Q3 43 and I have a Leica M with lenses.

I'm sorry to hear you have multiple sclerosis. But I'm glad you're sticking with your hobby. It can bring joy.

I think the Q3 cut be the solution.

I like "clean" images best and am not into old lenses with too much CA, etc.

I think the Q3 - you can crop heavily - is the way forward. If you're more of a 43 mm guy, that's it.

But as the only camera I use, it's limited. But it's excellent images.

I'm reaching out more and more often, only taking my Q with me.

It doesn't feel like an M, but it's close.

You'll experience getting many good shots where exposure and sharpness are correct. More than like an M. That's my experience.

If you're also into Sony, their small models are the same size and far better AF and stabilization. The price is also completely different and you'll get a long way with it and a small, good prime.

There is a lot of talk about the Q being the gateway to the M - but I think it just as often goes the other way !

In any case, I have bought both Q3s and use them as an M with AF.

Good recovery with multiple sclerosis and I hope you have many years and joy in the world of photography and the Leica world - which is something in itself.

[Mikep996]

I know this may annoy some since it's a LEICA site but based on your question/info in your post,  I suggest you at least take a look at a Hasselblad D2X.  I have recently acquired one and also have a Q3 and an M10R.   With the 38mm lens the D2X is a super Q3 (30mm equiv to "full frame"); with the 55mm lens it's a super Q3 43 (43mm equiv to "full frame") and, since it is an interchangeable lens camera, you can have multiple lenses like the M.  I say it's a "super" version because it has a 100Mp sensor.   The image stabilization is amazing - far better than the Q3.  It is NOT as good at high ISOs if that's your thing.  It's a bit larger than the M or Q but it's not that much larger.  

The image stabilization has allowed me to hand hold shots at one second with no subject blurring of stationery targets.  That's one second with no other support - just standing there with the camera.  Also, it is very easy with any of the Hasselblad XCD lenses to switch from auto to manual focus - much easier than with the Q.  I have used Leica cameras since my M6 was new and Leica digital since the M10 came out.  The D2X is the first non-Leica camera I have purchased in many, Many, MANY years.  Its menu system is even easier/more "friendly" than the Leicas' menus. NO Video at all but the Ms don't have that either.

That being said, the Q3 is a wonderful camera and I preferred it over my 10R so much so that I quit using the 10R completely almost two years ago.  The Q3 will be probably be accompanying the D2X on our Nile River cruise in September and I'm sure you would find that a Q3 (or Q3 43) would make a great camera for you unless the interchangeable lens thing is vital.  But based on your concerns you mentioned, a look at a D2X might be interesting.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Jeff S]

26 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

I know this may annoy some since it's a LEICA site but based on your question/info in your post,  I suggest you at least take a look at a Hasselblad D2X.  I have recently acquired one and also have a Q3 and an M10R.   With the 38mm lens the D2X is a super Q3 (30mm equiv to "full frame"); with the 55mm lens it's a super Q3 43 (43mm equiv to "full frame") and, since it is an interchangeable lens camera, you can have multiple lenses like the M.  I say it's a "super" version because it has a 100Mp sensor.   The image stabilization is amazing - far better than the Q3.  It is NOT as good at high ISOs if that's your thing.  It's a bit larger than the M or Q but it's not that much larger.  

The image stabilization has allowed me to hand hold shots at one second with no subject blurring of stationery targets.  That's one second with no other support - just standing there with the camera.  Also, it is very easy with any of the Hasselblad XCD lenses to switch from auto to manual focus - much easier than with the Q.  I have used Leica cameras since my M6 was new and Leica digital since the M10 came out.  The D2X is the first non-Leica camera I have purchased in many, Many, MANY years.  Its menu system is even easier/more "friendly" than the Leicas' menus. NO Video at all but the Ms don't have that either.

That being said, the Q3 is a wonderful camera and I preferred it over my 10R so much so that I quit using the 10R completely almost two years ago.  The Q3 will be probably be accompanying the D2X on our Nile River cruise in September and I'm sure you would find that a Q3 (or Q3 43) would make a great camera for you unless the interchangeable lens thing is vital.  But based on your concerns you mentioned, a look at a D2X might be interesting.

 

Apparently you have a dyslexic X2D.