Leica Q anyone?

[jonoslack]

What might be interesting to see if the cache of the rangefinder is a generational thing. Will millennials and the generation following them still think of photography in terms of the rangefinder? Who knows. Right now, the image of the rangefinder still has value. But it is built on historical value. Could the historical connection to the rangefinder as a tool to a specific genre of photography fade and Leica fade with it? Not sure, but it would be sad to see the optical rangefinder disappear altogether, even though I would probably never own a Leica.

Hi there Will
Certainly here new professionals are discovering the wonder of the rangefinder. People like Sarah Lee are at least relatively young and have only discovered it since the M9.

I went to a Leica meet group in London last week, and although there were certainly a few old farts like me . . . there were also quite a lot of young photographers.

My feeling is that there is a new generation coming up, and that the wierd ability to see around the picture, together with the lovely lenses is pretty timeless.

 

[glenerrolrd]

HI Roger
Of course, designing a digital rangefinder is a contradiction in terms .

Jono ....do a google search on “KONOST” and read the section on digital rangefinders . They already have a prototype and it is a digital rangefinder with an Optical Viewfinder . From their statements it does exactly what a optical rangefinder does .

If its digital ...its (1) cheaper (2) easier to adjust and (3) maybe more accurate .

Look at the shape of the camera .....seem familiar ?

Next time you speak with your buddies at Leica ...ask them about it . I am sure it can t be done ...just like they could never make a digital M .

The most impressive thing about a Leica rangefinder ..is the ability to see . I like the quote from Elliot Erwitt (on the Konost website) ...you see the image directly ...the camera just frames it .

There are a ton of Leica M photographers that would love to have an OVF that is easier to focus .

 

[Godfrey]

...
do a google search on “KONOST” and read the section on digital rangefinders . ...
If its digital ...its (1) cheaper (2) easier to adjust and (3) maybe more accurate ...
There are a ton of Leica M photographers that would love to have an OVF that is easier to focus .

(bolded) That's the hope, anyway. Until one is put into service, it's hard to evaluate.

Walking with the 24mm lens fitted to the M-P, also fitted with the the EVF, I find myself focusing with the RF first as it is the fastest way to get close to the mark. I then use the EVF to make small adjustments, when it seems necessary, and nail critical focus. Often none are necessary.

Switching to the 50 or 90, wide open, the EVF proves a little faster to get close in many cases and adds that extra bit of accuracy for critical focus which is hard to do with an RF. The same proves true with an optical SLR viewfinder.

So, my evaluation is that the optical RF is pretty fast and accurate with short lenses/low magnification subjects where the through-lens imaging systems are much more desirable as effective focal length increases. (This is why the pairing of M-P and E-M1 works so well ...

There is great advantage to having both in the same body, IMO. Exactly how the rangefinder is coupled to the lens (could be mechanical, could be electronic) and implemented (could be optical, could be electronic) is of a lesser concern.

G

 

[jonoslack]

Jono ....do a google search on “KONOST” and read the section on digital rangefinders . They already have a prototype and it is a digital rangefinder with an Optical Viewfinder . From their statements it does exactly what a optical rangefinder does .

If its digital ...its (1) cheaper (2) easier to adjust and (3) maybe more accurate .

Look at the shape of the camera .....seem familiar ?

Next time you speak with your buddies at Leica ...ask them about it . I am sure it can t be done ...just like they could never make a digital M .

The most impressive thing about a Leica rangefinder ..is the ability to see . I like the quote from Elliot Erwitt (on the Konost website) ...you see the image directly ...the camera just frames it .

There are a ton of Leica M photographers that would love to have an OVF that is easier to focus .

HI Roger
That looks excellent - I should have seen it (but I hadn't).
I'm impressed, and I'll certainly talk with them at Leica (presumably they've seen it, but I wouldn't guarantee it!).

Thank you for the link.

 

[ashwinrao1]

I think it will be QUITE a quality quamerA .....

 

[jlindstrom]

The lavida website is very good at creating FUD and making up 'news' while spreading the wrong info in order to create traffic.

Whoops.. looks like they were spot on. And on top of that, they had a unit for testing..

Now, speaking of the Q: it looks like a winner! There are some really nice features on it: shutter speed, x-sync, builtin evf, ois, fast lens, full frame, even with a 35mm crop it still almost matches x113 resolution, speedy af, great manual af.

LVL and Jono first looks both give it the thumbs up.

//Juha

 

[mmbma]

for those who doesn't have a 28mm summicron lens and want in, then it's a no brainer. buy the Q instead of the lens.

But for those who already have a 28mm...should we buy the Q? or just buy another used M240 body which comes close to the sticker price of the Q?

 

[Lars]

for those who doesn't have a 28mm summicron lens and want in, then it's a no brainer. buy the Q instead of the lens.

But for those who already have a 28mm...should we buy the Q? or just buy another used M240 body which comes close to the sticker price of the Q?

The no-brainer is don't buy a Summicron with a camera permanently glued to it. You'll regret it a few years down the road when the camera tech is obsolete.

I don't mind paying a few K for stellar lenses or for bodies that enable those lenses to capture, but gluing them together to create what is essentially a point and shoot is a bad idea. What a waste.

 

[Hosermage]

I'm not sure about that... When RX1 came out, people said sell your 35 lux or cron and get the RX1 instead and now it's buy the Q instead. I think it's still more sensible to buy the lens instead of a fixed lens body. I'm hoping some of the Q-goodness can rub off on that next M iteration.

 

[Godfrey]

The no-brainer is don't buy a Summicron with a camera permanently glued to it. You'll regret it a few years down the road when the camera tech is obsolete. ...

My Olympus E-1 camera tech is loooong obsolete, but it with the 11-22mm lens still makes photographs that thrill me. Even with all the advances in my other cameras, I still use it.

Just because the tech has become obsolete doesn't mean the camera is useless.

G

 

[mmbma]

I'm not sure about that... When RX1 came out, people said sell your 35 lux or cron and get the RX1 instead and now it's buy the Q instead. I think it's still more sensible to buy the lens instead of a fixed lens body. I'm hoping some of the Q-goodness can rub off on that next M iteration.

what really is exciting about that lens is it's compactness, autofocus, and aperture for full frame. I see future M lenses moving to automoatic

 

[Lars]

Just because the tech has become obsolete doesn't mean the camera is useless.

G

Of course not. It's still a bad idea IMO. And your E-1 wasn't priced at 3x my oldest's first car. The point is of course that this Summicron likely is good enough to stay relevant for decades rather than years, whereas the camera itself does not.

 

[Lars]

Still curious if Leica's strategy with this Q goes beyond bragging rights over RX1. Leica does not need another halo product - there's plenty of other products to cover that territory - and Leica has effectively priced itself out of any volume sales.

To develop its business and sell more lenses, a "low-budget" M body at $2K-3K would make more sense - entry level for the M system, open up for more M lens purchases, invite to upgrade body later on.

But this Q - it's just esoteric, for a limited market.

 

[Hosermage]

what really is exciting about that lens is it's compactness, autofocus, and aperture for full frame. I see future M lenses moving to automoatic

Respectfully, I hope you're wrong I wish they keep developing this line for you, but also keep up the M for me. Funny enough, with all the good reviews on the autofocus, it has zero interest to me, and the M lenses are already compact and full frame. With the Q release, I feel slightly jilted because it's investment away from the M models, but maybe they have enough people now to work on both lines? We'll see later this year, I guess (hope).

 

[Godfrey]

Of course not. It's still a bad idea IMO. And your E-1 wasn't priced at 3x my oldest's first car. The point is of course that this Summicron likely is good enough to stay relevant for decades rather than years, whereas the camera itself does not.

The E-1 plus 11-22 when they were new were priced at about $3300 in 2004 money, which was about 5x what my first car cost me. ;-)

The Summicron lens used in the Q is a lens specifically designed for the Q body and sensor as an integrated component with its image stabilization system, etc. It's as obsolete as the body is.

Others could invert your comments ... "Why should I buy a $4000 lens for a $3000 body? It doesn't make sense!" What things cost and how they are valued is such a slippery thing...

G

 

[Vivek]

Respectfully, I hope you're wrong I wish they keep developing this line for you, but also keep up the M for me. Funny enough, with all the good reviews on the autofocus, it has zero interest to me, and the M lenses are already compact and full frame. With the Q release, I feel slightly jilted because it's investment away from the M models, but maybe they have enough people now to work on both lines? We'll see later this year, I guess (hope).

I agree but also wish Leica well and hope they pull this off commercially.

 

[Lars]

The E-1 plus 11-22 when they were new were priced at about $3300 in 2004 money, which was about 5x what my first car cost me. ;-)

The Summicron lens used in the Q is a lens specifically designed for the Q body and sensor as an integrated component with its image stabilization system, etc. It's as obsolete as the body is.

Others could invert your comments ... "Why should I buy a $4000 lens for a $3000 body? It doesn't make sense!" What things cost and how they are valued is such a slippery thing...

G

Hehe I stand corrected - my memories of E-1 have faded a bit.

Sure someone could invert my comment - but they'd be wrong. The reason we invest more in lenses than bodies is, once again, that glass is what creates and captures the image, and glass conceptually does not become obsolete. A body OTOH is just a light-proof box with a sensor. Your typical interchangeable-lens shooter of today has gone through more camera bodies in the last ten years than a lifetime before that.

 

[Viramati]

Well my Leica M and 28 summicron are now both up for sale and the Q is on order. You may ask why? Well since I have mostly switched to the Sony A7 system my M has hardly had any use and then only with the 28 summicron for street/documentary work. At one point I had hoped to be able to sell the M and use the 28 summicron asph on one of my Sony bodies but unfortunately this lens is one of the worst performers from the leica stable on the Sony's. Also as much as I liked the results from the M and the 28 cron I have always found that in reality that the 28 frame-lines on the M are so near to the edge of the the viewfinder that it is a little hard to really judge the whole image and that the M finder is best suited for lenses from 35-75mm. The Q really ticks nearly all the boxes for me when it comes to a 28mm lens and camera combination and I think it is a camera that I will be happy with for years to come.

 

[Paratom]

for those who doesn't have a 28mm summicron lens and want in, then it's a no brainer. buy the Q instead of the lens.

But for those who already have a 28mm...should we buy the Q? or just buy another used M240 body which comes close to the sticker price of the Q?

Or just use the M we own with the lenses we own...

There is one reason why I could become weak...these days I sometimes like shooting with one hand without bringing the camera to the face, from deeper perspective or while walking. This is much easier with a fast AF and face detection.

But for me it is 2 questions: If one pays so much money, does a 28mm fixed focal length really fulfil our requirement? (if I see what I use on my M most then it is 35 and 50mm and not 28mm)
If not and if we see this camera as an adition to an M system: Do we want to have that addition in this size or would a Ricoh GR/Nikon A/x2 not be the better addition?

Buying this camera instead of a 28mm prime would not be my prefered choice.
I dont want to carry 2 camera bodies, and when photographing I would not like to switch between 2 different camera bodies, and when processing the images of one day I would like to have them from the same sensor with a consistent look.

 

[ptomsu]

Well, actually folks, the longer I think about the Q, read all the opinions here and on the net and see the great results, the closer I come to the point of wanting one as well. Maybe I will part with my M 2/28 and one of my old M film bodies and pull the trigger, just need some more thinking

As so often on life - never say never again