Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 136 of 136

Thread: Leica Q: First impressions.

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Nice shots Jono!

  2. #102
    Senior Member Malina DZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    S. Florida
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Beautiful shots Jono! Looks like you are quite comfortable with 28mm lens.
    Do you see any flaws in this 28/1.7 Summilux rendering that you wish were addressed better?

  3. #103
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by erudolph View Post
    Thank you Jono! Very much looking forward to the article. Was there much work in post?
    HI Ed
    There was a fair amount of post processing (too much in on or two cases I'm afraid) It was drab weather most of the time on the Wall - which meant either a dark green foreground or a blown sky -
    All the best

    Just this guy you know

  4. #104
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
    Jono, when you have a chance I would love to see the following image full size:
    http://www.slack.co.uk/2015/Product_.../view/ID334564

    You have many gorgeous shots there, but that's the one, uncropped, which will give a really clear view of edges and corners.

    I'm not obsessed with the deepest corners, if I see stellar performance everywhere else, like for example, the ZM 35/2.

    But it's nice to see what the lens will really do and nothing is so challenging as a long infinity landscape, where the rear element is closest to the sensor.
    Hi there - that image is not the best example as it was taken from a bus going at about 80km per hour . . . through a glass window! I did do a lot of testing at or near infinity, and although the corners aren't as good as the centre (probably because of the lens correction) they are pretty good. I'll see if I can dig something out for you if you like.

    All the best
    Jono

    Just this guy you know

  5. #105
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post

    Question: If you shoot with the Q, do you use the viewfinder most of the time? One of the reasons why I could be interested in the Q additionally to my M equipment would be to shoot from different angels using the display and AF, which should work quite well with the Q.
    What I also find interesting is the combination between short focal length and quite short closest distance.
    Regards, Tom
    HI Tom
    I MEANT to use the viewfinder most of the time . . . but in actual fact I used it with the LCD a lot - it's a very good LCD, and the focusing is pretty trustworthy as well. As you say - the short focal length and close distance is intersting.

    All the best
    Jono

    Just this guy you know
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  6. #106
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina DZ View Post
    Beautiful shots Jono! Looks like you are quite comfortable with 28mm lens.
    Do you see any flaws in this 28/1.7 Summilux rendering that you wish were addressed better?
    Hi There
    Thank you! I do like 28mm, much more than 35 for some reason.
    Considering it's size, I think the 28 is a cracker - I guess the in camera distortion correction does have a small softening effect on the corners, but I don't find it very noticeable, and never a problem.

    All the best
    Jono

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Random shots after a meeting on the walk back to the car:
    (The sharpness in the corners is fine for my needs.. All were shot at f/5.6)







    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #108
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Adam, I like the random shots. It appears that this camera works best when you let yourself loose- "free hand" so to speak.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Adam, I like the random shots. It appears that this camera works best when you let yourself loose- "free hand" so to speak.
    Thanks. I think that's the cool selling point about this camera. It really doesn't do to much to get in the way. So you can just have fun shooting. It's not a hassle, quite the opposite. It's a joy to shoot.

    The FL has turned out to be the most difficult thing about the camera, and even that's just something that'll go away with each outing.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi There
    Thank you! I do like 28mm, much more than 35 for some reason.
    Considering it's size, I think the 28 is a cracker - I guess the in camera distortion correction does have a small softening effect on the corners, but I don't find it very noticeable, and never a problem.

    All the best
    Jono
    Question Jono: Did you use the OIS? Just wondering, because in an interview Stefan Daniels recommended not using it, unless absolutely necessary saying it has negative effect on image quality. So just wondering wether that's where the corner "softness" people worry about is coming from..

    //Juha

  11. #111
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    My first impressions have been trumped by 2nd and 3rd impressions. THis camera is tremendously well rounded. Quick to AF. Accurate to AF. Amazing colors. Sharp as a tack. Solid DR (though it can blow highlights). Macro is delicious...It's such a great all 'rounder. I have posted on the "Fun with..." thread to express my enthusiasm for this versatile, well thought out camera...
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlindstrom View Post
    Question Jono: Did you use the OIS? Just wondering, because in an interview Stefan Daniels recommended not using it, unless absolutely necessary saying it has negative effect on image quality. So just wondering wether that's where the corner "softness" people worry about is coming from..

    //Juha
    Yeah I leave the OIS on. Because I find myself shifting in and out of malls/stores/etc. So it's easier to just leave it on. Although I did hear the same interview, and wonder if it really has a big effect or a small effect on IQ. Maybe I'll do some tests later.

  13. #113
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Huff' site informs that cheaper batteries (Sigma Quatro's- from a post there) are usable on the Q. That is really useful.

  14. #114
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by rayyan View Post
    ...
    Give me a 50mm and a 90mm and I have my cc ready. Or give me an interchangeable Q with its own 50+90 and I shall jump over it. ...
    The Q is certainly getting lots of positive press.

    Leica had it just right with the CL kit: 40 and 90 cover most everything. Add a 21, 24 or 28, your preference, as an occasional UW option if you like.

    Why do I still have three camera systems with seven lenses each, I wonder?

    G

  15. #115
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    Hi guys,

    OMG so much rambling.. Don't read it if you're not interested in hearing about AF, and minor complaints. Bottom line, it's the best AF mirrorless camera I've used to date. And I've briefly to extensively tried or owned most (save for samsung and panasonic). It's definitely going to give DSLR cameras a run for their money, especially if you compare a XX + 24G or XX + 24L vs the Leica Q. You can just skip my writing and ask me anything specific you'd like. Since honestly, this is just rabbling. I donít want to work on boring client stuff, this is taking my mind off of it.

    So I went out and picked up a Leica Q. I paid for it, it wasn't given to me. So my first impressions review is going to be honest and unbiased. I'll put up pictures in a few days if I have time, and will also answer any random questions anyone has. So feel free to ask!

    I went to the Leica Q launch event. It was dark, in a chic cigar smoking Edison bulb lit hipster kinda way. The bar was dark (I covered that) but we're talking 125th of a second @ 1.7 iso12500 or 25000 kinda dark (I don't often shoot under 125th because most of my subjects are quick moving, IBIS wouldn't work in such a situation). The fact that there were Edison bulbs scattered about on the bar counter there was enough light in some cases to shoot people at 3200/6400 if the subject was in the right spot 2ft from a table bulb. This is something you could have shot with your iPhone, but probably wouldn't have liked the results very much. Or at least wouldn't have been able to use it other then to be an instagram bragger.

    Just to explain myself.. I went to the Leica event with one goal in mind. To test the cameras AF abilities. I shoot weddings with M cameras, and I use to use 35FLE / 75APO. Lately I've been needing a change, so I've decided to go 28??/50APO/90APO but it was a tossup between getting the 28Lux or buying this little Q. The primary purpose of any 28mm for me is to capture quick shots while in the thick of things. Say people laughing and clanking glasses together. Or the nagging aunty of the bride who wants a photo with every single one of her friends and relatives. Or even shots of the bride and groom while dancing (but not intimate shots, sweeping shots). Also establishing shots of the venue and tables. People clapping at speeches etc. So basically a camera I put up to my eye when I don't have time or the space to back up. This is something a 35mm can also cover, but with a less crowded venue.

    With that said, lets get onto the AF first. So for me, I find that a 1Dx / D4 (I've used them all). All seem good but not excellent with the following situations. A strongly backlit subject that's wrapped in directional light. You'll find a lot of the time, you have to focus on the chest of a person because there's less light wrapped around their wider parts, and thus more contrast in the scene. This is something that I have to do with 1/3 of the backlit shots I take (with Canon/Nikon), but I always try for the face first. Especially if the bride has big hair, that makes things easier. The second is a lowlight situation where someone is being lit on one side, but the other side isn't getting much light, though with movement it flickers back and forth between high and low contrast face. In situations like this, for some reason cameras get confused. The last, and most annoying situation is when the subject is walking towards you very fast in very dark areas with little to no light, maybe a bit of rim, accent light.

    With that said, I've used the Sony A7, A7R, A7s and A7II for dark/hazy weddings. I've also used an A6000 briefly at a semi well lit event. These cameras suffer the worst from the things I mentioned above, but the backlit situation is almost impossible for the A7 series cameras to cope with. Even at the beach on a hazy day, I have that problem.

    How did the Leica Q do?

    Well it was definitely the right environment for dark moving subjects, and while using the test camera for an hour, I didn't have problems hitting focus at all. It wasn't sharp as some people were moving faster then 125th could handle, and I was almost at MAX iso which as you know would degrade sharpness, especially on the Leica Q screen. I don't think it hunted once during that test.

    The side lit subject that keeps moving in and out of the shadows in the most annoying of ways, the Leica Q seemed quick enough to nail them without getting confused. Here the camera hunted once or twice, but I believe that was due in part to the light of an Edison bulb being directly behind the subject and the subject was getting hit with wrapped light from far away, which can confuse any Camera with a wide angle shot from 15ft away.

    The last test I am going to discuss, which was the first thing I tested for... The dreaded backlit strobe or disco light, or spot light etc.. These lights pop out of nowhere all the time, and they're GREAT to have at weddings because they add interest to the scene, and give everyone a beautiful hollywood looking rim light. BUT they're a bugger to shoot into. So how I did the test go? Fist I found a really fancy floor lamp. I stood in front of it, and I focused on the lamp then on my hand with my fingers splayed outwards. A lot of light was coming through the spaces between my fingers.. I must have looked like I was doing magic hands to the onlookers (or shadow puppets), but the camera would focus on my fingers most of the time. Out of the 20 times I did this, looking like a crazy person, I think it focus racked 4 times, and the second I jerked the camera (center focus) to the palm of my hand, instead of the fingers, it instantly grabbed the palm, which is a feat in its self, I have smooth palms with no shadows (what I moisturise).. I will add, it finds it's footing much faster then a 1Dx does with 24/35/50L primes (the 24-70II and 70-200 IS II are really snappy lenses, but I rarely use them in ballrooms). Oh and don't get me started on the 1Dx + 85L II combo, it's in a different "slow" league focus wise to anything currently on the market with known speedy AF. So yeah, the camera was quick, and quick to snap back into focus.. I dare say, as quick as a D4/1Dx with almost the speediest of AF lenses... I haven't done side by sides, and I haven't shot a 15 hour wedding with the Q, but I look forward to doing so. Keep in mind, generally **** gets bad lighting wise when I'm on my 12th hour of shooting two 1Dx cameras straight.. So you have to understand my if my technique suffers a bit by then. But I'm young and fit, so it's not like I'm the primary cause of focus issues with a 1Dx/D4.


    Now, with all that said.. I had set out to test the cameras AF and it passed. So what I did next was I took the models and I placed them in front of the 15 Breeze Para (they had a CONTINUOUS LIGHT setup in one corner). Once the models were in front of the light, and the light was shining directly into the camera. I started shooting. Of course the camera was on auto mode at that point (as I somehow ended up with another Leica Q, my first one I gave up to some fellows as I felt bad), and they were silhouettes. But the bit of wrap light that hit there lashes or noses were sharp.. The camera locked focus PERFECTLY. I then realised the models wanted to see the images.. So being embarrassed, I switched the settings to full manual and shot (125th, iso50,000 @ 1.7) that's how dark it was on the models faces, of course the breeze at this point was practically wrapping around there hair and cheeks but their eyes and foreheads were properly exposed. The background was white washed, and yet the camera kept nailing focusÖ The models were really impressed with the photos.. My wife was laughing at me with her friends. Because geez I just canít switch off. Now I have to admit they had a diffuser on the Breeze (lame) but the light was still more directional then anything non-man made and of course the harshest of sunny evenings. As in, it was directional enough that I think if I was using a wide angle lens, it may have panicked a D4/1Dx. I've had it happen, exactly how I mentioned in my studio with a 5D3 and D800. But without a diffuser on the Para. So again, I was stunningly impressed. So much so I ran out the door towards the reception area and told them to reserve a set, as I wasn't leaving without one and I had already seen one or two chaps buying the camera and running off.


    Afterwards, satisfied with the focusing, I started playing around with the wifi settings.. They're smart, but when you have a room full of iPhones and about 20 Leica Q cameras, it's a bit difficult to lock a signal... Actually I deduced later, that it was probably due to the fact that six or seven people had been linked to the camera I was using... To many people with the app running and it fails I suppose?
    Anyway, once we reset the wifi code, I tried the app out and it worked. I feel it's a good start, but can be improved somewhat. Visually more then anything. I think it serves its purpose function wise, and it's pretty easy to setup. But could be a little prettier and sleeker in use. Their is also lag on the iPhone, kinda like youíre using an M240 and EVF-2 (hehe).

    Then at that point I just wanted to get the camera and go to dinner. So I bought the camera, and left for dinner. Once at dinner I started to use the camera.. The lighting was pretty terrible but the camera locked onto focus. The shots I took looked awful, but obviously at that point it was just not flattering light. That's when I should have put my SF24D on (BTW I brought it with me to the event so I could test it). The flash works in M and A modes only, but not in TTL mode. I suspect the SF-58 will react the same way.. The good news is Leica has a decent SF26, the bad news, the SF26 does not do TTL with M or S cameras.. Yeah so if you use both, you now need two different flashes

    Anyway, I suppose what I'm saying is. If you're shooting crappy images, the camera will lock focus but the shots will still be crappy.. If you're shooting good images, the camera will lock focus (and do it fast) and your images will be good. I bet you could shoot sports with this, the only problem is, youíd get smashed by the athlete since itís a 28mm lens.
    Playing with it for a few hours, I'm starting to regret the 28mm focal length.. But I would have felt the same way about the 28Summilux. I did sell my 28 Summicron last week (not because of the Q, because I don't like 28mm lenses, though the 28cron and 28elmarit are awesome!).

    So in all fairness I think this will get use, but it'll be limited at best. Not because it isn't a REALLY capable camera, the most capable I've tested.. A600/EM-5II included even though it was brief (whatever the name of the new Olympus one is, I was playing with it at big camera while in Japan a month back, and the predecessor my friend has and Iíve used it at a wedding).
    The only drawback now, the fixed lens, which you'll either love, or hate. I donít know yet, because I havenít had enough time with it to tell.. From the samples Iíve seen online, it doesnít have plastic bokeh for the most part.. Though I did see some of it myself tonight, which I dislike passionately.

    In the very close future, I think I would buy a 90/2 version of this Q camera.. And probably be able to shoot with it for the next 5 years along side my M + 50APO. And honestly, my S-system is big and heavy, any time I'm out shooting an editorial with it and the 70mm, the Leica Q will make a good holstered companion.



    Ok, long and not really edited as I wanted to just get my thoughts out there RAW.

    So more ramblings, so I donít have to answer basic questions:

    Now that I'm holding the camera in the comfort of my home, I've noticed that while off, if you shake the camera gently it rattles, this is probably normal as the rattling goes away when the camera is powered on.

    Also I'm pretty sure that we've all been swayed into believing that the focus is manual as in geared and mechanical. I'm fairly certain it's focus by wire.. BUT a really responsive version of.. With really dampened focusing that feels like a smooth but firmer Loxia lens. Still I feel a smidgen of FBW lag. Nothing you would complain about.. Although I met some older fellows tonight (die hard M fans) who passed on it, simply for this reason alone.

    Camera is super light.. But I just picked it up to check for that, and again, that rattling really makes me feel uneasy, especially after the price I paid.

    In the had it feels great. And that thumb wheel isn't as far back as I thought.. Pretty easy to rotate while still shooting if needed.

    Buttons are smart, but I noticed that it lags when you review an image. I don't know WHY this Leica would lag, it's got 10FPS, yet the monitor takes one second to go from a pixelated file to a sharp file.. Like something so M9 of themÖ I really dislike that, luckily I donít chimp at weddings.

    Physical shutter dial can be overwritten by hitting the thumb wheel, if you have it set that way... I think that's stupid but whatever.

    Camera isn't that grippy, but it does look sexy, and it's so light weight that you wouldn't notice the lack of grippy vulcanite. Plus who doesnít use a strap or at least a finger loop?

    The lens seems big, the camera isn't something that could go in anyones pocket, unless you could also smuggle large oranges.

    The shape of the EVF box annoys me.. It just looks stupid like a sad robot. Itís not a 16:9 EVF so WTH?

    I can see dust getting caught in the lens or dirt when shifting from Macro to regular mode... But it's a damn cool way they've hidden the macro scale. But really, I hate that, and it worries me since my Singapore home is dusty due to MRT construction and my LA home is also dusty due to it being a desert and also under construction.

    A friend of mine who also happened to be at the event, she kept hitting the movie button accidentally.. So it was all photos and movies the whole night for her. Even after I corrected her, I think the buttons are just to close, but where else would you put it?

    The two custom buttons are a must.. There are a few things you're going to not want to have to dive into the menu for.. One is EVF/LCD related and the other is AF type related.



    MY #1 BIGGEST GRIPE: And this is something I'm going to email Leica about RIGHT NOW. When you have the camera set to EVF only, two things should happen. One the EVF should be off until you put your eye to the sensor (saves battery). And the other.. You should have the option to set it, so when you click on the menu or play button, you don't have to stand there like an idiot reviewing photos or looking through the menu using the EVF.. It should automatically bring up the LCD so you can scroll naturally like you would on any M camera or S camera. I can't even get my thumb onto the buttons while looking through the EVF, so how would I switch menu items.. I wouldn't.. And that sucks. This is such an amateur SONY move.. It's unbelievable that Leica wouldn't think to just add this function... But really folks, if this is the thing that bothers me most about the Leica Q, then I think Leica did a good job.
    I actually got into a heated argument with someone from Leica about this at the event.. He couldn't see my point of view, and I felt he was overly rude about my need for this feature, so I decided to also not be polite about my dislike of this. He kept saying it was unnecessary and that itís vital to not remove your eye from the viewfinder ever. I really hope Leica can see my point of view. I know this has bothered people on the A series cameras since Sony started with this EVF technology.


    The sensor, IQ, ISO all all that other BS, I'm sure you've all seen on review sites. People have DNGs out for you to play with.. I don't really need to get into that tonight. I'd confidently use it up to 6400 ISO and just laugh it off as grain.. And honestly, the grain is WEIRD, it doesn't go all coloured and messy.. It's little fine black dots.. Almost M9 CCD-ish.. The problem, you can see those little fine dots at 100% view on most ISO speeds.. Nothing bad, again just very CCD-ish, or old tech CMOS.. Which really has me wondering who's making their sensor.. If it was Sony (even though Leica says it isn't) then they did a good job with color profiling, because I don't really get a Sony color vibe from this camera (and generally I dislike Sony sensors, even in Nikons).. I will amend that tomorrow after going out and about with the camera. If it looks suspiciously Sony to me, Iíll let you all know. BTW, I wouldnít hesitate using this thing at MAX iso, itís really very nice in black and white.

    They give you a leather strap with it.. It feels fake, but my leather straps come from either Luigi and are ďmehĒ construction wise, but soft.. Or come from the same supplier who supplies Hermes with their birkin leather... Apparently. So I'm a bit picky when it comes to leather and leather goods. But good on them for not suppling that horrid rope burn material. Charger, cables, books.. Nothing exciting. Lens hood seems weirdly not as you would expect.. Actually I'm a bit upset it's not cool like the 21SEM or 35FLE.. It doesn't have that little zigzag notch to lock into place.. It more just stops screwing.. And you have to be REALLY hard on it, or else the hood doesn't sit straight.. And even then, I have a sneaky suspicion mine is a slight bit crooked.. I'll have to check this tomorrow at the store with the display model. I wouldn't use the hood anyway.. It makes the camera look more phallic then I want. I have the thread ring on, and it's fine. I also put a filter on it, because why not.

    Aside from the rattling which again is bothering me, and FlyByWire (although again, the best implementation of), I think I like the design.

    EVF is super smooth.. Visually way better then anything I've seen before.. It's like going from SD to 4K or from home tv to IMAX. And when I spin the camera around like a banshee in decent light, I donít see jello... I wonder if the video is good?? No 24FPS though, what's up with that?? Seriously Iíll have to test the video for rolling shutter, jello ect. I have a suspecion itíll be good IQ wise.

    Again, why couldn't it have been a interchangeable system, or at least a 35mm cron? Hmmm, maybe we'll see a 75cron or 90cron Q soonÖ Please, Leica, please.

    BTW - I grumbled a lot the past couple of days about Leica (and my again, not stellar CS/Repair job). I still think their service/repairs need improving. Let's hope the Q doesn't break.. This was also something I heard mentioned by 3-5 people.. People I had just met, I asked what they thought.. Most answers were along the lines of "we're weary to buy anything fully electronic from Leica, they don't have a good track record" Also "if the camera goes bad, you also loose a lens along the way". BUT I still bought the camera, because I want to show Leica that I can be an M user, love rangefinders and mechanical lenses. But I can also be a Q or whatever interchangeable camera replaces the Q user..

    Basically, I can't complain about the "lack of technology" from Leica, and then not buy the most advanced mirrorless camera I've ever seen, heard of, or touched. It just wouldn't be fair to Leica, and would make me a hypocrite for criticising them and then not giving them a chance... Hmmm I'll raise hell if this thing breaks though, I really will.
    wow,.,.amazing description.,.,
    I really like it.,.,



  16. #116
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    Random shots after a meeting on the walk back to the car:
    (The sharpness in the corners is fine for my needs.. All were shot at f/5.6)







    great shot.,.,!!!



  17. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Huff' site informs that cheaper batteries (Sigma Quatro's- from a post there) are usable on the Q. That is really useful.
    Panasonic DMW-BLC12 Rechargeable Lithium-ion Battery (7.2V, 1200mAh)
    I think they're like $50 here, $40 in the states.

    Stupid me, bought one for $93 USD on launch, as I wanted a spare battery.

  18. #118
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    In an effort to try and convince myself to buy a M246 I decided to shoot the Q like a monochrom. It backfired because I had so much fun that I probably don't need to buy the Monochrome anymore. (I still might, who knows):
    (I'm starting to get worried, this camera is so much fun/easy, it's turning into a point and shoot. Gonna switch back to the M camera before I get to comfy)


















    BTW, I'm full and sick now, from all the Durian eating
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Just to update: Tested the Q at a wedding shoot, and it had no problems keeping up. Wishing there was a tele version now (75 or 90 would be great).

    Also wanted to point out after testing flashes here are my findings:

    SF-24D - only works on M and A modes. BUT on A mode it's more accurate/reliable then the SF26 on TTL mode. A mode is more reliable on the Q then on the M or S.

    SF-26 - Works on TTL mode, and is a horrible manual flash.. On TTL mode it's not as good as the SF-24D on A mode!! BUT TTL mode seems to work better on the M240 then the SF-24D does on the M240.

    Bottom line, if I had to do it again, I'd buy a SF-24D for my Q, and a SF-26 for my M240. Seriously, in a variety of tests, that's how I felt. Though my flash use and your flash use may be different. Different techniques different end results.. You get the idea.
    Hostly though the I40 nissan has a pretty easy manual mode dial, and although the nissan flash only works on manual, it's quick to adjust and gives you enough of what you need to get through an indoor event.

    I don't want to mention the SF58 it looks ridiculous on anything but the S.
    Will also add, I never feel more cheated by Leica then when I'm buying batteries and flashes.. Flashes especially though. You get so little for so much.

  20. #120
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Hello!

    Can everyone say what is smallest image area for Q in macro mode?

  21. #121
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    25
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    I'm torn. My Sony RX1 is getting beat up and I'm considering an upgrade. For those that have used both, is this a material increase in quality (both image and shooting) or minor, or just different? The things that I like most about the Sony is the dynamic range, silent shutter, & low light capabilities. I'm at best an enthusiast but I try hard to pay attention to good technique when time permits. I miss not having an EVF/OVF but that alone is not worth $4K. I've been using a fixed lens for the last 4-5 years and sometimes wish I had more reach. Going full mirrorless to the Sony is a huge investment and one that I must resist.

  22. #122
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    I decided I really had to go and hold a Leica Q and play with it before joining the long waiting list I have been quoted by several UK suppliers.

    I am really glad I did.

    I know this will be a dissenting view but I was not impressed. Firstly, the viewfinder may be high resolution but there was something about it which just did not fit right with me. I am a great supporter of EVFs believing that analogue finders are dead. I've used one since I got my GF-1 about 5 years ago, then with a GH-2, RX1 and now A7/S/Rs. Is the actual physical size of the viewfinder itself smaller than, say, a A7 even if it is higher resolution? Something just did not feel right about it to me.

    Secondly, I realised that much as I like fixed lens cameras (for example I shoot a lot with my GR, DP2M and DP3M) that the 28mm view was not exactly thrilling - which is odd as I like my GR a lot. Again, this could have been because the viewfinder was, well... a bit dim. I actually got my A7R out as soon as I got home to look through the viewfinder in case I have suffered some kind of overnight revelation that they are no longer any good... and I am pleased to say I still find it the best EVF I have used.

    Then there is build quality. It felt cheap. The lens body looks like a Leica lens and responds like a Leica lens but the lens body itself felt a bit plasticky which is weird for something which is metal. I had watched TCS Jordan's just published review and a couple of times he talked about Panasonic's involvement with the Leica Q. I thought he was speculating. I am beginning to think maybe he knows something we don't. It may have coloured my view but I can see what he was getting at. It may be magnesium but it didn't exude the heft and weight of say a M6, M7 or my much loved but now departed M8.

    I'm glad I went to see one - indeed it is only sensible if one is contemplating parting with GBP 2900 for one - because the lust I felt is slaked.

    In fact, I think the RX1 I owned exuded a more well built and usable feel than the Leica Q. It certainly made we want to leave the store with one when I had the opportunity. I sold it expecting my A7/R/S to be a replacement but I have missed it and I have been contemplating getting a RX1R. I put that on hold when the Leica Q was announced expecting to be dazzled by the product.

    Now I think I'll wait and see what the RX1/R replacement is like because I suspect Sony will go for the jugular with a Q-killer that will also be more to my liking.

    Apologies if my thoughts offend anyone - I was very enthused by this camera - indeed was willing to plonk my hard earned savings on it and rejoin the Leica camp. It even ticks the box of my liking for fixed lens cameras (which not everyone enjoys). But I'll pass for now.

    LouisB
    -----
    My new book "Whitechapel in 50 BUildings", Flikr Stream, www.louisberk.com
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #123
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Louis your thoughts are well appreciated. Like ice cream we all have preferences and no one should ever feel bad by atating why they like or don't like ( or favor) a particular camera....even if it goes against the grain. In fact it presents a different point of view which many will appreciate. I'm always surprised when someone posts a slightly disenting opinion and is chastised for it. On the contrary, its refreshing and wish more reviews would prese t a genuine balanced view...not just throw a bone for the sake of throwing one to appear balanced.

    *** Addition.... Louis regarding heft and built of the Q....I felt same way about x cameras like x vario. Its supposed to be metal I believe but it feels like plastic. I was surprised by this.

    Dave (D&A)
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #124
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Adam your info regarding Leica's different flashes really hits home. There doesn't appear to be any standardization with regards to TTL and Leica's various flashes and bodies.

    The 24D works great in A mode but doesn't bounce. It works fair to poor in TTL mode on a M9 and not all that much better on a M240. The newer sf26 doesn't appear to work at all in TTL on a M9 but well on a M240. Why TTL protocol should be different between a M9 and M240 is strange.

    I'm not certain how the SF 26 works on X series of cameras and that is something I'd l98ove to know. The SF 26 also also should have had a A mode in my opinion. The advanatge of the sf 26 over the sf24 was supposed to be its bounce ability even though power output is low.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 25th June 2015 at 13:50.

  25. #125
    Senior Member peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tysons Corner, Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    I find the Q utterly intriguing and enchanting. Definitely a nice landscape/travel/walkabout camera.

    An ideal kit for me might be the Q along with a D Lux (I actually prefer it to the Panasonic version due to the hand grip add on which to me looks like it might provide a better balance while holding it) to get those shots I might want to have a little zoom capability with decent IQ (with a dollop of nice bokeh on the side, perhaps?) and a decently fast (and sharp) lens and the same DNA in the AF. Thoughts?
    Life is an infinite series of moments called..."now".
    My job is to capture them.

  26. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Louis
    After reading your post, I grabbed my Q to try and better understand your views.

    Strangely, I do not find it "plasticky" as it has just the right amount of weight to me for its size. Regarding the EVF, I agree it is different and the data contained in it is smaller than on my M EVF-2 which is less spectaular, but works fine for me. I am still referencing the manual to see how various features might work for me, but even though I have the RX-1, I find this 28 a good FL for my street/candid work. That said some report that the RX-1 35mm lens is better in the corners than the Q's lens.

    I take no offense in your comments and believe we all have the right to express our own views without chastisement.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #127
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Like a whole lot of others I have been waiting for a new digital Leica CL, my all time favorite camera with its 3 lens package was just the right size and weight. The Q comes the closest to a CL so far, though it is a bit larger. The CL was 121mm x 76mm x 32mm and the Q is 130mm x 80mm x 40mm?? (body only). The CL without lens was 365g and the Q is 640g so it is close in many ways though lacking the OVF and interchangeable lenses. The other big plus I see is the fast AF and faster electronics as that has been the failing of the X, XV, and T. In this price range the electronics should be top notch. As to build quality, the XV and T were both fine, to me and the Q appears to be at least as good if not better. It may not match the M in build quality but in this age of digital, there is a rapid point of diminishing returns where it doesn't pay to go too far with a camera in which the electronics are not replaceable and will soon become obsolete from a performance perspective. Sensor technologies are rapidly changing and today's sensors may appear rather pedestrian 4 or 5 years from now much as sensors from 4 or 5 years ago appear today when it comes to resolution and low light sensitivity. Curved sensors and stacked or shifted at extremely high speed sensors will produce better color with less loss of light at the edges and higher dynamic range. Maybe one day, someone will produce a camera body that is the ideal physical size made of titanium with interchangeable electronics so one buys a high quality body and upgrades the electronics as technology advances.
    V/r John

  28. #128
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    I decided I really had to go and hold a Leica Q and play with it before joining the long waiting list I have been quoted by several UK suppliers.

    I am really glad I did.

    I know this will be a dissenting view but I was not impressed. Firstly, the viewfinder may be high resolution but there was something about it which just did not fit right with me. I am a great supporter of EVFs believing that analogue finders are dead. I've used one since I got my GF-1 about 5 years ago, then with a GH-2, RX1 and now A7/S/Rs. Is the actual physical size of the viewfinder itself smaller than, say, a A7 even if it is higher resolution? Something just did not feel right about it to me.

    Secondly, I realised that much as I like fixed lens cameras (for example I shoot a lot with my GR, DP2M and DP3M) that the 28mm view was not exactly thrilling - which is odd as I like my GR a lot. Again, this could have been because the viewfinder was, well... a bit dim. I actually got my A7R out as soon as I got home to look through the viewfinder in case I have suffered some kind of overnight revelation that they are no longer any good... and I am pleased to say I still find it the best EVF I have used.

    Then there is build quality. It felt cheap. The lens body looks like a Leica lens and responds like a Leica lens but the lens body itself felt a bit plasticky which is weird for something which is metal. I had watched TCS Jordan's just published review and a couple of times he talked about Panasonic's involvement with the Leica Q. I thought he was speculating. I am beginning to think maybe he knows something we don't. It may have coloured my view but I can see what he was getting at. It may be magnesium but it didn't exude the heft and weight of say a M6, M7 or my much loved but now departed M8.

    I'm glad I went to see one - indeed it is only sensible if one is contemplating parting with GBP 2900 for one - because the lust I felt is slaked.

    In fact, I think the RX1 I owned exuded a more well built and usable feel than the Leica Q. It certainly made we want to leave the store with one when I had the opportunity. I sold it expecting my A7/R/S to be a replacement but I have missed it and I have been contemplating getting a RX1R. I put that on hold when the Leica Q was announced expecting to be dazzled by the product.

    Now I think I'll wait and see what the RX1/R replacement is like because I suspect Sony will go for the jugular with a Q-killer that will also be more to my liking.

    Apologies if my thoughts offend anyone - I was very enthused by this camera - indeed was willing to plonk my hard earned savings on it and rejoin the Leica camp. It even ticks the box of my liking for fixed lens cameras (which not everyone enjoys). But I'll pass for now.

    LouisB

    Hi Louis,
    I agree the Rx1 feels a little more "dense" than the Q, I wouldn't go so far saying the Q feels plastic. For me it feels well made and like a good compromise between weight and build. I do like that it is not as heavy as the Leica M. The viewfinder you can change the brightness as far as I understand. I feel its one of the better EVF, but still far from an optical one for my taste. I like a lot that it is build into the camera. For me the simplicity of the Q user interface is highly appreciated compared to the Sony A7 series. On the other side the A7 is the more flexible camera and if you say you prefer the EVF of the A7 I do not doubt that you do.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  29. #129
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam L View Post
    I'm torn. My Sony RX1 is getting beat up and I'm considering an upgrade. For those that have used both, is this a material increase in quality (both image and shooting) or minor, or just different? The things that I like most about the Sony is the dynamic range, silent shutter, & low light capabilities. I'm at best an enthusiast but I try hard to pay attention to good technique when time permits. I miss not having an EVF/OVF but that alone is not worth $4K. I've been using a fixed lens for the last 4-5 years and sometimes wish I had more reach. Going full mirrorless to the Sony is a huge investment and one that I must resist.
    I have used both cameras only a little bit, but I would see the main differences:
    Q: faster AF (depends what you mainly shoot, when having kids like I do fast AF doesn't hurt)
    Q: Build in viewfinder
    Q: better auto iso implementation and simple user interface
    Q-RX1: different color signature (Sony colder, Leica warmer and more saturated - I prefer Leica specially for skin)
    Q-Rx1: 28 vs 35mm. I don't know yet what I prefer. I like 35mm more often but sometimes love to be able to use 28mm, so which is better for me???
    RX1: A little smaller, if you don't put the EVF on the Camera

    PS: If you missed more reach then going from 35 to 28mm does not sound the right direction for me.

  30. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Adam your info regarding Leica's different flashes really hits home. There doesn't appear to be any standardization with regards to TTL and Leica's various flashes and bodies.

    The 24D works great in A mode but doesn't bounce. It works fair to poor in TTL mode on a M9 and not all that much better on a M240. The newer sf26 doesn't appear to work at all in TTL on a M9 but well on a M240. Why TTL protocol should be different between a M9 and M240 is strange.

    I'm not certain how the SF 26 works on X series of cameras and that is something I'd l98ove to know. The SF 26 also also should have had a A mode in my opinion. The advanatge of the sf 26 over the sf24 was supposed to be its bounce ability even though power output is low.

    Dave (D&A)
    Hi Dave,

    Yeah, it's strange to say the least. Seems like more wrong with it then just difference of the way one camera meters a scene over another.. I don't own X series cameras, so I couldn't tell you about the compatibility.

    I grabbed a Nissin i40 for ease of manual flash exposure. It's a good balance on the camera. Quick to adjust exposure on the fly.

    Maybe Leica will up their flash game if they bring out a Q interchangeable.

  31. #131
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Anyone tried the Metz Mecablitz 26AF-1? It is supposed tone compatible with Leica and only $129 versus the Leica price for the similar looking SF26.
    V/r John

  32. #132
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Does not work. I tried. Metz and Schmidt told me that they're not going to have a M240/Q compatible one for quite some time (as in, they're going to make it, but I'm sure they have to wait until Leica sells X amount of flash units before they're legally allowed to).

  33. #133
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Neutral Zone
    Posts
    47
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Macautio View Post
    Hello!

    Can everyone say what is smallest image area for Q in macro mode?
    Around 12x18cm. So it would be circa 1:5.

  34. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Some preliminary thoughts after 1 day
    Positives
    1. AF appears to be very good and accurate
    2. the lens is lovely
    3. Like the analogue controls
    4. files certainly seem to have a 'special' look
    5. EVF is clear and smooth

    Not so positive
    1. Bad banding in shadows even at moderately high iso (I have probably been using the A7s to much!!)
    2. Can't move magnified focus point in manual focus.

    What I would like to see
    1. FN button menu needs to be configurable as it is hard to access certain settings quickly.
    2. Easier access to and nameable presets needed
    3. DNG only
    4. Access to configure auto-iso through the iso button

    All in all this will probably be my go-to street/documentary camera as long as the light is not too low and then I will have to go back to the A7s and FE28
    David
    http://dpsampson.zenfolio.com
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/viramati/
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #135
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    Just got back from a week in HK.. It's why I haven't been active.

    I brought the Q, and had the M-P, 21lux, 50lux, 90APO. Found myself using the Q the whole time. Save for a quick walk from the apt. to Starbucks and back where I used the 21lux. Never felt like I needed/missed the tele lenses.

    To be honest, I find that the M-P + "insert good M lens here" is still a better IQ package. But it's really hard to fault the Q, as the images are amazing, the camera is small and light, and easy to use. AF is fantastic, and if you're lazy the OOC JPG files are better then what you'd get from the M240 (and I like the M240 OOC JPG files a lot).


    All in all, the Q is a great densely populated city camera. Pictures in a while, I'm really busy this weekend and next week.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica Q: First impressions.

    does the Q have any internal memory and/or a memory buffer ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •