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 yesterday at 03:36 PM by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

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

[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 yesterday at 06:40 PM 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 yesterday at 07:32 PM 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. 

[bobtodrick]

16 hours ago, 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.

Yup it would just make more sense for the M EV2 to have a/f lenses.

[Mr Perceptive]

18 hours ago, mujk said:

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. 

You also have to take into account that with the design of a fixed lens camera, the placement of the sensor (back-focus) is free to position, so the designer often will opt to put it further back than would be in a regular camera, and part of the lens is then within the body, in order to make the whole camera more compact.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

Yup it would just make more sense for the M EV2 to have a/f lenses.

It makes no sense to have M-mount cameras with AF. For that, we have a fully adequate L mount. An M mount that supports AF or automatic aperture stop-down is no longer an M mount.

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

It makes no sense to have M-mount cameras with AF. For that, we have a fully adequate L mount. An M mount that supports AF or automatic aperture stop-down is no longer an M mount.

I actually agree with you...I'm just saying that it would make more sense to go the M route than a new version of the Q...which would in essence be an M-EV1 with A/F.  But as we both know you can't make a Leica user happy with existing options 🤣

[mujk]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

It makes no sense to have M-mount cameras with AF. For that, we have a fully adequate L mount. An M mount that supports AF or automatic aperture stop-down is no longer an M mount.

I agree. The L-mount is the most rational way for Leica to implement modern lens controls such as AF and auto aperture in a full-frame mirrorless ILC. I don't think they would want to create yet another mount. M lenses can also be easily be adapted to the L mount. The form factor of the camera could then be whatever, but I think we are now discussing something resembling an M or Q. However, this would only mean the external design, not the technology. I used the APS-C sensor CL as an example in my previous post and another one is the LCD-only Lumix DC-S9. Of course, also more compact L-mount lens alternatives from Leica would be welcome.

[jrichie]

On 11/21/2025 at 5:40 AM, 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.

why?  I would be using the Sigma Contemporary / Leica version lenses on a camera like this anyway.

When I handled the Sigma BF I thought it was similar in size and weight to the Q, which is when I started thinking about a QL option.  There is no reason at all Leica could not do it - the only thing I can think of is they would insist on 60mp minimum and charge the usual prices when all I personally need is 24MP [SL3S sensor], especially in a ICL camera where cropping not as important as the Q.

A Q L is the only camera I will buy from Leica in the near term, but it probably will never happen.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[IkarusJohn]

On 11/21/2025 at 7:40 AM, 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 sure I agree with this, Keith.  

Leica makes very high quality, yet small M lenses to more exacting standards than the SL lenses for the simple reason that they cannot rely on software to correct faults. Each M lens has to work with every M camera (within reason) made since 1954.  The APO SL lenses don’t have that constraint, and they don’t have to compromise for size.  Any residual “flaws” can be corrected in software.  Peter Karbe has spoken about this at length.

We know Leica can make high quality small manual focus lenses, and we also know Leica can make relatively small AF leaf shutter lenses in the Q cameras (albeit coupled with the sensor).  I have no doubt at all that Leica could do a better job of QL lenses than Hasselblad have done with the XCD V  lenses (though the latter are easily good enough for me).

Combining its expansive knowledge of optics to use M designs with an L mount doesn’t automatically get you to SL sized lenses, does it?
 

[S Maclean]

But, at which point would Leica be diluting it's own offering?  And I am not being "smart" here, I actually wonder.  There is a lot to say for simplicity and it's already gettig a little crowded. D, Q, M, SL, S (if they continue their releases into medium format again) MEVF.......

What I like, right now, and the reason I actually sold my Hasselblads and other systems, is the idea of one brand, system with multiple choices that are "somewhat" compatible.  M,

• M monochrome and now MEVF (The EVF version is still early to place, but it's a worthy costumer-driven extension.  These are great passion cameras, simple, artisanal, dedicated.
• Q's (28,43, monochrome) - A handy flexible, durable and simple system for uncomplicated walkabouts and travel....capable of stunning proffesional level photography, but friendly enough to be a casual snapshot taker.
• SL- Capable, studio and proffesional photography. Best optics, msot flexible system compatibility with other brands (and with the M).  It's only a comproimise if you want to use it for a purpose where the other systems are clearly better suited -street, casual photography, snapshots, easy going-  But it is capable of delivering everything the other two systems offer and then some....... the idea of using interchgeable lenses (M, sigma, Panasonic, Leica etc etc etc) with ease and unparalell IQ adn IBIS. So, it has a place.
• S- Medium Format (all of the above PLUS a medium format sensor.....I mean.....
• D- pocket size(true pocket size...not Barbour hunting jacket pocket size) great image, small packet....don't ask too much from it and you will love everything about it.

So....Q with L lenses? what specific advantage does it offer over the SL?  Let's face it....mount an L lens and you need a body for it or it's unbalanced...and it's not like nthe camera is going to fit better with an L lens in a bag than an SL would. maybe you can fit an extra battery in the bag...that's it.

Now, In my mind, the idea of a Q with a Tri-Elmar or Vario elmarit....that is something to dream about. The D "kind of?" has that functionality....imagine that on a Q body, with a more robust multiple "optical" focus system, 60 mp setup, and everything else that the Q comes with it.  Wow. (credit to @Tailwagger) It would still fall well within the Q ethos.

Edited 1 hour ago by S Maclean
spelling