taemo
eat sleep shoot
Q AF is alot faster than the RX1
Q also as OIS
Q has 28mm 1.7 lens versus RX1 35mm 2
Q has a nice big EVF
for ~1300$ more doesnt sound too bad IMO if you dont mind the 28mm focal length
i personally cancelled my Q pre-order because 28mm is just not for me.
Put the money on a used M240 so that i can use my 35mm and 50mm lens which are my favorites
f16sunshine
Moderator
I don't use Leica lenses. The point about the value of the lens is lost on me.
A Zeiss or CV lens does what I need it to do.
Although I have owned several Leica lenses I just don't see the point considering options available.
I'm not a cheapy either. I owned the M8 when it was still new and expensive,...Flirted with the M9 but ultimately decided the M8's I had were fine, ...Adopted the RD1 when it was the only Digital Rangefinder out there.
I love Rangefinders and have used film models since I was a teenager.
The only reason I would pay so called "Leica prices" is for a rangefinder. I would pay $4-$5k for a fixed lens 40mm Rangefinder in a heartbeat!
The Q does not have a rangefinder. I don't see why it needs to set me back $4K without one.
A Zeiss or CV lens does what I need it to do.
Although I have owned several Leica lenses I just don't see the point considering options available.
I'm not a cheapy either. I owned the M8 when it was still new and expensive,...Flirted with the M9 but ultimately decided the M8's I had were fine, ...Adopted the RD1 when it was the only Digital Rangefinder out there.
I love Rangefinders and have used film models since I was a teenager.
The only reason I would pay so called "Leica prices" is for a rangefinder. I would pay $4-$5k for a fixed lens 40mm Rangefinder in a heartbeat!
The Q does not have a rangefinder. I don't see why it needs to set me back $4K without one.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
good point Andy, i also wanted a RF camera hence why i went to the M instead
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Tim,
My 28 Cron is almost permanently mounted to a Wetzlar M6 unless it is borrowed to be used on my Monochrom. Since I own so many cameras I kinda dedicated the 28 Cron to the M6 in a manner that it is perhaps 97-98 percent used like a fixed lens camera.
My black paint MP with 0.85 VF'er similarly is dedicated to and optimized for shooting a 50, and I even own a Canadian MD-2 that I use with a 21 Super Elmar that more or less is permanently mounted. I often carry two fully rigged cameras and sometimes three. I'm not a lens changer so most of my cameras get optimized for a specific focal length. An example of this is I had Sherry strip our the 75mm Frames out of my MP for uncluttered 50mm frames.
You are correct that I have versitility if I need it, but call me a lazy slacker because I don't like changing lenses and missing shots. Understand I consider the way I have my kit arrange as a luxury that not everybody can do. No doubt that the Leica "Q's" price makes it a luxury item that is not practical for most. I'm just calling it for what it is: an expensive camera that is a luxury item not built for the masses.
No doubt that my way is not utilizing the versitility and adaptability you mention, but it is a great way for me to do a lot of shooting.
Cal
True, but at huge price increase comparatively (film cameras shouldn't be part of the comparison) and some of us prefer AF. I don't use many different focal lengths. So, at $4250 and with my other cameras I already own I've got all bases covered. I have no interest in the M anymore.
I guess this is what it comes down to... what do you already own and use and does the Q now fit into that equation because all other bases are covered.
For me, the Q is the type of camera that I like these days (and there aren't many alternatives). RF shaped, fast AF, decent fast lens, high ISO, full frame, great EVF, etc.
Well, a M is $7000 right (without a lens)? $3000 to remove the RF seems about right and you get a lens too. We will never sell you guys on the value of this camera vs. something else. However, for some of us... it is exactly what we like.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Respect and congratulations!
Ronald M
Mentor
Q is a test bed for whatever is new in the camera. What works may evolve into something useful.
My first camera was a Waltz with 50 mm Nikkor fixed on. Could not wait until I graduated, had money, and buy an interchangeable lens model. Bought a Pentax Spotmatic, 28,35, 50 , 85, 135, 200 all in one shot. I am sure I made Altman Camera very happy that day.
No I will not go back.
My first camera was a Waltz with 50 mm Nikkor fixed on. Could not wait until I graduated, had money, and buy an interchangeable lens model. Bought a Pentax Spotmatic, 28,35, 50 , 85, 135, 200 all in one shot. I am sure I made Altman Camera very happy that day.
No I will not go back.
BlackXList
Well-known
It's the only Leica that I've ever had GAS for.
But there's no possible way I can justify it. I have the Ricoh GR for my fixed 28mm needs, and it's spectacular.
it's not full frame, but I can get a 28mm 1.8 AF lens for less than a 10th the cost of the Q for one of my full frame bodies.
It's a great looking piece of equipment, a focal length that I love, and the shots from it look great. It's just not something I can find any way to coming close to justifying.
But there's no possible way I can justify it. I have the Ricoh GR for my fixed 28mm needs, and it's spectacular.
it's not full frame, but I can get a 28mm 1.8 AF lens for less than a 10th the cost of the Q for one of my full frame bodies.
It's a great looking piece of equipment, a focal length that I love, and the shots from it look great. It's just not something I can find any way to coming close to justifying.
Well, in all fairness, you can get a pretty decent 28mm 2.8 lens for 1/10th of the price of a GR as well.
As I keep saying, the main gripe with this camera (as always with anything Leica) is the price. You cannot fault much else with it.
willie_901
Mentor
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Willie,
Thanks for adding to the clarity. For me no AA filter is a bonus for resolution and another reason to like the "Q."
Cal
gustavoAvila
Established
All contemporary cameras either have a very weak AA filter or none at all. This particular "specification" has been a non-issue for some years now.
robert blu
quiet photographer
For sure a special camera. If I only had any digital camera with a short tele lens, 75/90 mm I would buy the Q because 60-70 % of my shooting is made with wide angles . But there is still that 30% where I would like to have a short tele, or at least a 50 (I know, I can crop the Q).
4 K EUR for 60% of my use is in this moment too much. But never say never...
robert
4 K EUR for 60% of my use is in this moment too much. But never say never...
robert
MIkhail
Well-known
In my opinion, making photographs is such an emotional, sometimes irrational process (I am not talking about protocol/ wedding/ product/ graduation/ bat mitzvah pictures of course) so, if the camera makes you inspired and you can afford it, then, by all means, go for it. Pain of high cost will go away but camera will stay.
I personally cannot see myself buying it, simply for the reason that this digital camera does not inspire me enough, to want it badly enough.
The Leica prices in general piss me of just as much as next guy, but so is the high Snap-on price of a good automotive tool, high Trek price of bycicle or high Porsche price of a sporty car...
Photo-people are conditioned already to think that $4000 for a lens (few pieces of precision glass in metal barrel) is a good price in general, so... Leica can charge much and get away with it, good for them.
BlackXList
Well-known
I think I need to be shopping the same places you are haha.
The GR is a niche camera, very much like the Q (I don't think their similarity is a coincidence), but it ticked the boxes for me, and at that price I could justify it.
For me any consideration of the Q would have to take into account that I already own the GR, which pushes it even further out of the picture.
(Plus I'm getting quite attached to my GR) haha
willie_901
Mentor
I really don't care about the prices.
I care about the cost-to-benfit ratio.
I care about the cost-to-benfit ratio.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I'm with Willie. Whenever I spent money on luxury I never regretted it, but when I cheaped out I often had remorse. Why would I want to cheat myself, and over the long term I remain satisfied.
Cal
squirrel$$$bandit
Mentor
For my own uses, I think I'm going to pick up an X100T, as I prefer the focal length and optical VF, and it's vastly cheaper.
BUT, I messed around with a Q for ten minutes the other day, and holy moses, it's really nice. Super fast and quiet, feels like an M in the hand. If you are accustomed to shooting a Leica with a fast 28 for street and want to move to digital, this thing is for you. It's marvelous. I can totally see the appeal.
Some people only really shoot with a 28, and this is for them.
The guy at the Leica store in SoHo responded to my request with "Yeah, I know. Everybody who walks through that door is here to try the Q."
BUT, I messed around with a Q for ten minutes the other day, and holy moses, it's really nice. Super fast and quiet, feels like an M in the hand. If you are accustomed to shooting a Leica with a fast 28 for street and want to move to digital, this thing is for you. It's marvelous. I can totally see the appeal.
Some people only really shoot with a 28, and this is for them.
The guy at the Leica store in SoHo responded to my request with "Yeah, I know. Everybody who walks through that door is here to try the Q."