What future for the Leica Q ?

"I would not be surprised if we see different focal lengths released."

John and John...
I wouldn't say "no" to a Q with a 40mm :)
 
I picked up a minty Q used for I think it was $3400... It's every bit a Leica as my M240. I like it a lot and for some kinds of shots it's spot on! I carry it and my M240 with the f1.4 'Lux other than the weight, it's a great combo. And both cameras fit nicely in the Prince Street ONA bag along with batteries, filters and other odds and ends.
 
jsrockit said:
Me neither... though I'd rather have a 50mm.
Click to expand...
Big 50 fan here, too...35 1.4 on Fuji X my most used lens these days...however

I've had three "40s"
60 on a 645
20 on a m4/3
80 on a 6x7
Liked them all.

With that big, pixel rich sensor you could think of it as a "fifty", shot a bit loose.
Crop in tighter when you need to.
Don't when you don't.
:)
 
Ronald M said:
A camera without interchangeable lenses is useless to me. Anyone can do a crop on 28. Stupid
Click to expand...

Ok. While I have no interest in a 28mm fixed lens camera, I would promptly buy a Q35, Q40, or Q50. Different strokes ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Hunter S Thompson said:
I guess an EVF is OK for snapshots, but I do spend minutes looking through the viewfinder, making compositional decisions. Spending minutes looking at those tiny TV's is very frustrating and headache inducing.
Click to expand...

Some folks won't, can't adjust. Others can just fine. With a 50 I'd own one. With a 35, high probability, with a 28, useless for me other than indoors. The evf is irrelevant, I adapted long ago. As Leica is doing as well.
 
leicapixie said:
Strangely the old are living longer but younger are falling to all manner of illness. Cancers, heart, diabetes due to lack of exercise, eating junk food.
drugs etc.
I am 72 and except for a heart condition more fit and healthier than many young folks.
Walk miles on photo shoots, walk a dog, don't drive a car and do NOT eat junk food.
Why I won't buy a new Leica is because the old ones work fine.
Next year Ziggy (M3) will be working since new, 50 years.
Almost every day..
Click to expand...

Well, I agree with your every word..
 
I am considering throwing out the M9/35CRONASPH combo for a used Q

It's a tough decision cos I really love the RF feeling but I'd also love to be a bit faster w/ focusing in low light (also the macro and the better ISO performance are welcome). If only the Q were 35 or 40mm.
 
Corran said:
Check out the thread below this one in the Q forum. Apparently many folks would rather the EVF / AF than a RF :confused:.
Click to expand...

Thank God the masses don't drive Leica M. If the masses drove Leica then Leica would look and function like everything else out there. What separates them is their differences and the appeal to photographers like me that are fed up with the bells and whistle one size fits all that is most of the other makers mind set.

I love a true ranfgefimder and have really no use or want for EVF. I would shoot a Sony or a DSLR if that was what I wanted. Glad that there are REAL choices from all the other makers out there.

I think if you see at a 28mm FL then the Q might be a good choice for some. I have a good friend that has that and an M 262 and loves them both.
 
In this field, Leica can't compete with the electronic giants who bring a Q to the market every other six months. Better they stick with the M formula, ostrich leather included.
 
Peter Wijninga said:
In this field, Leica can't compete with the electronic giants who bring a Q to the market every other six months. Better they stick with the M formula, ostrich leather included.
Click to expand...

Even the giant coudn't do that: it took the only other camera in the class, the Sony RX1, 3 years to get a successor. Expect the Q to get an update in a similar time frame. And Leica doesn't really have to: naturally you wouldn't expect your average consumers to shed out 4 grands "every other six months" just for a new family camera...we're talking about expensive cameras intended for enthusiasts after all.

Leica surely can't compete with Sony all by itself, but in the Q's case it's not alone. The Q is essentially, aside from the sensor and the lens, a Panasonic camera (even down to the unique "EVF Sensitivity" setting). And Panasonic had already primed its next-gen tech (with the GH5, the G9, etc.) for Leica to pimp the next Q with. So it's just a matter of time.
 
Ken Ford said:
But he has a point. The Q is designed for today's photographers, not the old guard.
Click to expand...
You mean the Q is designed for people who only shoot w/ cell phones.

Anyone who must have a 28mm because that´s what his cell phone has ? And you pay Leica prices for that kind of thing?

Just shoot an Iphone and spend on designer drugs.



Old guard?? Everything old is new again.
 
If it wasn't so expensive, I would buy it without a second thought. Why? Because I used the heck out of a Ricoh GRDIII, which is the same focal length. Some of the best photos I've ever taken came from that camera and I found the 28mm length much more useful than I expected originally; street, landscape, interiors, even a couple of informal portraits. A full frame sensor at the same length? Shut up and take my money, even though I'd lose the pocketability of the Ricoh.

EDIT: If they knocked $1K or so off the price, I could probably justify it to myself. Alas...

EDIT 2: I also use a Fuji Natura S with the 24/1.9 all the time. Amazing camera and lens combo for travel, but I get that wide angle isn't for everybody. It was beast to tame, but once you get it down, lots of fun to be had.
 
Last edited:
Well, now...

When I bought my M-P 240, I seriously considered a Q instead but I was worried about the cropability down to my three most used focal lengths - 35, 50 and 75. The Q2 may be more than I can resist as my only digital Leica, I already decided to sell the M-P 240.

What I really was hoping for was an interchangeable lens Q-type body with EVF only, but...
 
jsrockit said:
As a person that's 42 years old (and therefore, neither young or old)... I think you guys are being a little rough on phatnev. It could have bee worded better, but I think he was just trying to say that Leica better start worrying about what the younger generations wants in case it can't sell those folks on its M legacy.
Click to expand...

Many of the younger folks who are really that seriously into photography as art are more interested in film again; it's a poorer generation that cannot afford what many consider vanity items for old people such as digital Leicas. You don't need expensive film gear for art, and for the non-artsy stuff (and even some artsy stuff) you might as well just use a phone. Common digital editing tools such as VSCO that try to approximate film looks are encouraging lots of folks to just start using the real deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top