QL Camera?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With all the discussion and speculation (and angst) about the M EV1, and the rage about the discontinuance of the CL/TL2 cameras, there seems to be a space for a Q body, with interchangeable lenses.  This camera would need to differentiate itself from Leica’s existing systems, and from the Sonys and Fujis.  It would be premium.

How about this:

• Q body, but with L mount, black paint only
• Q and QM versions
• user interface buttons etc consistent with Q and SL
• Joystick
• Electronic/global shutter

The lenses would need to differentiate themselves from the SL lenses - M quality, but with AF:

• Reasonably compact APO-Summilux-QL lenses only 
• no zooms, ultrawides or teles
• no re-badged Sigmas/Panasonics, just Leica lenses made in Germany
• black paint only
• leaf shutters
• XCD style manual focus clutch, with depth of field scale
• Focal lengths 24mm, 40mm and 80mm macro

Leica script on the top deck, no red dot, sapphire LCD and Leica red dot on the lens (like the Leica PL cine lenses).

Edited 4 hours ago by IkarusJohn

[CptSlevin]

18 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

With all the discussion and speculation (and angst) about the M EV1, and the rage about the discontinuance of the CL/TL2 cameras, there seems to be a space for a Q body, with interchangeable lenses.  This camera would need to differentiate itself from Leica’s existing systems, and from the Sonys and Fujis.  It would be premium.

How about this:

• Q body, but with L mount, black paint only
• Q and QM versions
• user interface buttons etc consistent with Q and SL
• Joystick
• Electronic/global shutter

The lenses would need to differentiate themselves from the SL lenses - M quality, but with AF:

• Reasonably compact APO-Summilux-QL lenses only 
• no zooms, ultrawides or teles
• no re-badged Sigmas/Panasonics, just Leica lenses made in Germany
• black paint only
• leaf shutters
• XCD style manual focus clutch, with depth of field scale
• Focal lengths 24mm, 40mm and 80mm macro

Leica script on the top deck, no red dot, sapphire LCD and Leica red dot on the lens (like the Leica PL cine lenses).

Dream on, not gonna happen.
It will kill off SL line, it's already having hard times by Leica standards.

[IkarusJohn]

5 minutes ago, CptSlevin said:

Dream on, not gonna happen.
It will kill off SL line, it's already having hard times by Leica standards.

Joy germ!

It’s all about dreams … 😀

[wlaidlaw]

The QL would need IBIS to be competitive. Given ever worsening arthritic tremor, my recent digital camera purchases have had IBIS (Panasonic TZ200 and Hasselblad X2D-100C and I would not consider any camera without IBIS now. The IBIS on the Hasselblad is excellent and the new model is even better with a 10 stop (supposedly) benefit. Certainly I have been taking photos hand held with my X2D at 1/5 of a second with no perceptible shake. The OIS on my Q3 is not bad but not a patch on the Hasselblad. The S series lenses might be a bit too big and clumsy but they do have the benefit of leaf shutters. It is frankly a pain to use the electronic shutter on my X2D for non-leaf-shutter lenses or older Hasselblad lenses where the shutter is mechanically driven from the camera. The V to XCD adapter is a dumb adapter, as is my Contax 645 to XCD adapter (it has a mechanical supplementary diaphragm to cope with the electronic diaphragm of the 645 lenses). Rolling shutter effect due to a quite slow 1/6th of a second sensor read speed is ever present. 

Wilson

[keithlaban.co.uk]

As much as I'd love to see it delivered, the full frame AF lenses would likely have to be as large as the SL lenses which rather negates the concept.

Edited 1 hour ago by keithlaban.co.uk

[IkarusJohn]

Yes, IBIS  would be essential.  Removing the shutter would give some space.

Lens size would be a challenge, but that rather depends on how you define “compact”.  Think M sized lenses (the APO Summicrons are modest), then accommodate AF and the leaf shutter - the existing Q lenses aren’t huge.  Consider also that, much like the SL lenses, software correction would mean the lenses wouldn’t require the optical perfection of the M lenses.  The XCD V lenses are reasonably small, considering they’re medium format; similarly the Sigma Contemporary lenses I’ve just bought.

Being L mount, the existing lenses would all still be available.  Offering “off” sizes Leica has already made previously (24 Summilux-M, 40 Summicron-M and 80 Summilux-R) redeveloped in L mount, but limited to premium Summilux lenses, would add to what’s available.  The entire system, with 24-40-80 would be fine for those not wanting the size of the SL lenses and the M lenses still available with the adapter.

Another differentiator would be the quality of the system - nothing “entry level” about such a camera, priced at the same levels as the M system.

Cannabalise Leica’s other products?  Well, if Leica sold one of these instead of an M or an SL, it would still be selling a camera and the QL lenses.  The important point is that there is clear demand for a full frame CL replacement, and many wanted the M EV1 in L mount.  The M EV1 would either need to be significantly improved, or just die a natural death.

I appreciate that there will be a whole host of “expert” posts explaining why this would be technically impossible or commercial suicide (time for you to step up @jaapv 😉), but Leica is about innovation.  They’ve done most of this before - it just needs refinement; and no one else is doing it.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why does it have to be a Q body rather than a M body? Or something in between. The M is wider, the Q is taller and a bit fatter. Does it make any difference? For me, it should be a rectangular box with curved ends for design heritage reasons, but no EVF bump or other protrusions to catch on clothes, straps, bag inserts etc.

[IkarusJohn]

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

Why does it have to be a Q body rather than a M body? Or something in between. The M is wider, the Q is taller and a bit fatter. Does it make any difference? For me, it should be a rectangular box with curved ends for design heritage reasons, but no EVF bump or other protrusions to catch on clothes, straps, bag inserts etc.

It doesn’t.  I suggested the Q moniker only to cash in on the Q’s success (offering ostensibly the same camera, but with a mount) and to differentiate from the M (confusion) and SL (size).  People seem to find clearly defined choices easier.  Surely you’d want it no bigger or fatter than an M body?  It would be nice if it had a rounded grip like the X2D, but that might be a step too far for some …

[LocalHero1953]

The argument about a QL has been done to death in the last couple of years e.g. the Q is only as small as it is because it's designed as a single camera+lens piece with no focal plane shutter and no IBIS (just OIS), so a ILC version would have to be bigger. I'm not a camera designer so I don't know what is possible. But you're just adding the the forum thread count on the subject 

Edited 1 hour ago by LocalHero1953

[wlaidlaw]

52 minutes ago, keithlaban.co.uk said:

As much as I'd love to see it delivered, the full frame AF lenses would likely have to be as large as the SL lenses which rather negates the concept.

Not if they got Sony to make them and just badged them Leica 😀

Wilson

[Tailwagger]

Personally, I'd far rather they added a Q Vario with a 24-60 f2.8 or something of the like. 

[mujk]

The CL is quite similar in size to the Q, although a bit thicker. It has an L mount. However, the APS-C sensor and the focal plane shutter take up less space than those of a full-frame camera.  The battery is also smaller and the EVF is lower resolution than in e.g. the Q3. So maybe it would be possible to squeeze a full frame sensor into the CL form factor, but it might require some other compromises. And the AF lenses would probably still be about SL lens size.