The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica Q: First impressions.

aDam007

New member
Easier to stick a phone close to the subject than a brick. :D
Random story, not really relevant.

I bought a New Old Stock Practika for my wife AGES ago while we were in school in Toronto (maybe 12 years ago), and the guy who sold it to me told me a funny story.

A thief came into his camera shop and tried to rob him with a knife. He resisted from over the counter and the thief grabbed some random stuff like film and ran out of the store. The shop owner grabbed a Practika from behind the counter and chased him out of the store down the street.. Couldn't catch the guy, so chucked the camera at him. Hit him in the head knocked him down in front of a few cops (his shop is next to a donut store, no joke).

I don't know in the end who got into more trouble, but the moral of the story was that the practika survived, no issues. And the guy had a news paper clipping to prove it.

He told me the camera was built like a brick (I didn't buy the banged up one). The camera I bought still works today, and man is it a brick. My wife rarely uses it, she prefers her phone :D
 

aDam007

New member
Leica Q, don't know if it was in macro mode or not. I suspect it was. It's so easy to switch back and forth, I forget.. That and the camera can get close without switching to macro mode. Nothing special, I like the rendering, was at the flower shop today with my stylist.

 
I'll chip in the focal discussion.. I know this will be heresy to some, but consider this:

1) the Leica X113 is 16mp @35mm, crop sensor and people were fine with it
2) Leica Q is 28mm full frame
3) Leica Q crop mode gives you 35mm @15mp, which is pretty damn close to X113 which noone complained about
4) few people complain about Q edges, well crop to your favorite 35 focal and corners are gone!
5) if your crop further to 50mm with either Q or X, you end up around the same 8-9mp which is still good enough for normal sized prints or typical viewing at the FullHD tv or even a 4k tv
6) using the crop mode in Q gives you "faux rf" framelines and you can see outside the frame, it's a gimmick but I think I'll like it still!

I know a full frame 50 with 24mp would be nice and all that, but just thinking from a practical use, not professional use, side of things there are many things done right in this camera. And if the hobbyists would stop peeping so many pixels and rationalized things from usecase side, it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. In a way the Q is a modern version of M camera with a fixed digital Tri-Elmar. :wtf:

And now I'll run & hide before the following flames reach me! Time to sit back, have some :watch: & see what you guys think.

//Juha
 

aDam007

New member
I'll chip in the focal discussion.. I know this will be heresy to some, but consider this:

1) the Leica X113 is 16mp @35mm, crop sensor and people were fine with it
2) Leica Q is 28mm full frame
3) Leica Q crop mode gives you 35mm @15mp, which is pretty damn close to X113 which noone complained about
4) few people complain about Q edges, well crop to your favorite 35 focal and corners are gone!
5) if your crop further to 50mm with either Q or X, you end up around the same 8-9mp which is still good enough for normal sized prints or typical viewing at the FullHD tv or even a 4k tv
6) using the crop mode in Q gives you "faux rf" framelines and you can see outside the frame, it's a gimmick but I think I'll like it still!

I know a full frame 50 with 24mp would be nice and all that, but just thinking from a practical use, not professional use, side of things there are many things done right in this camera. And if the hobbyists would stop peeping so many pixels and rationalized things from usecase side, it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. In a way the Q is a modern version of M camera with a fixed digital Tri-Elmar. :wtf:

And now I'll run & hide before the following flames reach me! Time to sit back, have some :watch: & see what you guys think.

//Juha


I never bought into the X platform.. I didn't like the images from the X series (or T).

point 6.. Yeah that's pretty slick implementation for sure!

Nothing wrong with cropping, but I rarely make it a habit when shooting in general. I usually switch lenses for the added benefits a different FL would give me.
 
I never bought into the X platform.. I didn't like the images from the X series (or T).

point 6.. Yeah that's pretty slick implementation for sure!

Nothing wrong with cropping, but I rarely make it a habit when shooting in general. I usually switch lenses for the added benefits a different FL would give me.
This is true for me also. But in this case, especially for 35, there's enough latitude to get a decent sized picture still. And I'd normally consider doing this in post, but if it helps with the process I could see doing it like this as well.

Our requirements differ quite significantly though, since you're a successful pro photographer and I'm looking at things from the hobbyist point of view ie. happy snapper.

I have bought and used X series quite extensively and have liked the results I get out of those. So in a way for me, this is 2 cameras in 1 plus the other added benefits.

On the M I'd switch lenses too.. but even with the M I tend to mount 1 lens and go with that for most of the day if not all of the day. Only change lens if I absolutely need to. If I can, I'll rather not change at all.

So from this side the Q makes a lot of sense.

Also about your wife's write-up, she was exactly as promised in the title.. brutally honest! Never the less, it was also a interesting read.

//Juha
 

UHDR

New member
this may be my very first leica, lol.

you may be right in terms of colour and everyone else may be experiencing the same problem, because i notice there is unusually high portion of review photos (in all the leica Q reviews) are in black and white.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I'll chip in the focal discussion.. I know this will be heresy to some, but consider this:

1) the Leica X113 is 16mp @35mm, crop sensor and people were fine with it
2) Leica Q is 28mm full frame
3) Leica Q crop mode gives you 35mm @15mp, which is pretty damn close to X113 which noone complained about
4) few people complain about Q edges, well crop to your favorite 35 focal and corners are gone!
5) if your crop further to 50mm with either Q or X, you end up around the same 8-9mp which is still good enough for normal sized prints or typical viewing at the FullHD tv or even a 4k tv
6) using the crop mode in Q gives you "faux rf" framelines and you can see outside the frame, it's a gimmick but I think I'll like it still!

I know a full frame 50 with 24mp would be nice and all that, but just thinking from a practical use, not professional use, side of things there are many things done right in this camera. And if the hobbyists would stop peeping so many pixels and rationalized things from usecase side, it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. In a way the Q is a modern version of M camera with a fixed digital Tri-Elmar. :wtf:

And now I'll run & hide before the following flames reach me! Time to sit back, have some :watch: & see what you guys think.

//Juha
I don't think people are complaining without cause. If I remember correctly the RX1 does the same thing but at 35/50/75 which is a more useful range for most. In either case though you're losing a lot of resolution with the maximum crops.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I'll chip in the focal discussion.. I know this will be heresy to some, but consider this:

1) the Leica X113 is 16mp @35mm, crop sensor and people were fine with it
2) Leica Q is 28mm full frame
3) Leica Q crop mode gives you 35mm @15mp, which is pretty damn close to X113 which noone complained about
4) few people complain about Q edges, well crop to your favorite 35 focal and corners are gone!
5) if your crop further to 50mm with either Q or X, you end up around the same 8-9mp which is still good enough for normal sized prints or typical viewing at the FullHD tv or even a 4k tv
6) using the crop mode in Q gives you "faux rf" framelines and you can see outside the frame, it's a gimmick but I think I'll like it still!

I know a full frame 50 with 24mp would be nice and all that, but just thinking from a practical use, not professional use, side of things there are many things done right in this camera. And if the hobbyists would stop peeping so many pixels and rationalized things from usecase side, it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. In a way the Q is a modern version of M camera with a fixed digital Tri-Elmar. :wtf:

And now I'll run & hide before the following flames reach me! Time to sit back, have some :watch: & see what you guys think.

//Juha
My thoughts go back and forth regarding this question:
If one likes 35mm for 80% of the shots but would enjoy 28mm FOV here and then, what is the better compromise?
option 1) a 28mm FOV like the Q, where you do have the nice option of 28mm for the 20% shots where you like the wider view, but therefore in 80% of your shots you shoot in a cropped mode. You pay 4000 for a Q while you could do the same with a X.
option 2) a Q with 35mm lens (RX1): you can enjoy the full resolution for 80% of your images, but for the 20% of your images where you would enjoy 28mm FOV you have to work around it and shoot with 35mm.
But then you would also have more room to go further and crop to 50mm FOV and still have 15MP.
 

cam

Active member
My thoughts go back and forth regarding this question:
If one likes 35mm for 80% of the shots but would enjoy 28mm FOV here and then, what is the better compromise?
option 1) a 28mm FOV like the Q, where you do have the nice option of 28mm for the 20% shots where you like the wider view, but therefore in 80% of your shots you shoot in a cropped mode. You pay 4000 for a Q while you could do the same with a X.
option 2) a Q with 35mm lens (RX1): you can enjoy the full resolution for 80% of your images, but for the 20% of your images where you would enjoy 28mm FOV you have to work around it and shoot with 35mm.
But then you would also have more room to go further and crop to 50mm FOV and still have 15MP.
Just an FYI: On the RX1, although you have options to go 35/50/75, it is only in JPG mode for the 50/75 if you want to see the framelines... You can, as you said, crop the DNG, you just won't have the guides whilst you're shooting.

The Q, on the other hand, will give you the full DNG regardless of whether you're shooting 28/35/50 whilst still being able to see the framelines when you're shooting.
 

aDam007

New member
This is true for me also. But in this case, especially for 35, there's enough latitude to get a decent sized picture still. And I'd normally consider doing this in post, but if it helps with the process I could see doing it like this as well.

Our requirements differ quite significantly though, since you're a successful pro photographer and I'm looking at things from the hobbyist point of view ie. happy snapper.

I have bought and used X series quite extensively and have liked the results I get out of those. So in a way for me, this is 2 cameras in 1 plus the other added benefits.

On the M I'd switch lenses too.. but even with the M I tend to mount 1 lens and go with that for most of the day if not all of the day. Only change lens if I absolutely need to. If I can, I'll rather not change at all.

So from this side the Q makes a lot of sense.

Also about your wife's write-up, she was exactly as promised in the title.. brutally honest! Never the less, it was also a interesting read.

//Juha

I don't know about successful. Busy, but not successful :D

Yeah, so tonight in honour of everyone who said "don't be afraid to crop" I went around using the 35 and 50 mode almost the whole night (knowing that I could easily just recover the full frame in the raw file). Bottom line, I think you could get away with 35mm crop at the lower ISO range. Higher then 1600 and I'm pretty hesitant to use the 50mm crop, higher then 6400 and I'd rather not use the 35mm crop mode. At one point I accidentally left my aperture ring at 5.6 and was shooting at like 25,000 ISO. Definitely 50mm crop mode suffers here. I corrected it 5 shots later, but it's easy to mess up with you're letting the camera pick the ISO (which I generally don't do, but was testing the cameras spot metering mode, which BTW is pretty spot on).

One more gripe I have, since it's still sort of a rolling review. The AF box is to big for 28mm lenses. Sometimes you get check or nose and not eyes in focus.

Honestly, using the camera tonight, I really want Leica to release a 75mm Q ASAP.

I don't like the SF-26 at all (wouldn't say it's a waste of money, but close to it).. Rather use the SF-24D on A mode or M mode, or Nissan I40 on manual mode.
 

aDam007

New member
this may be my very first leica, lol.

you may be right in terms of colour and everyone else may be experiencing the same problem, because i notice there is unusually high portion of review photos (in all the leica Q reviews) are in black and white.
Sure you're not looking at the Monochrom review :D
I prefer color, and most of my images are in color. The colors coming from the Q are pretty good. Leica did a good job, no matter who made the sensor.
 

aDam007

New member
My thoughts go back and forth regarding this question:
If one likes 35mm for 80% of the shots but would enjoy 28mm FOV here and then, what is the better compromise?
option 1) a 28mm FOV like the Q, where you do have the nice option of 28mm for the 20% shots where you like the wider view, but therefore in 80% of your shots you shoot in a cropped mode. You pay 4000 for a Q while you could do the same with a X.
option 2) a Q with 35mm lens (RX1): you can enjoy the full resolution for 80% of your images, but for the 20% of your images where you would enjoy 28mm FOV you have to work around it and shoot with 35mm.
But then you would also have more room to go further and crop to 50mm FOV and still have 15MP.
Personally I would have preferred 35mm optics. Even if the lens had to be slightly bigger. Though I don't see why that would have been the case, I could have been fine with a f/2 lens.

Now that there is a 28mm, perhaps they'll give us a 75mm.. And then next round interchangeable?

The 28 is a fun FL, it's just not ideal for professional use.
 

aDam007

New member
Just an FYI: On the RX1, although you have options to go 35/50/75, it is only in JPG mode for the 50/75 if you want to see the framelines... You can, as you said, crop the DNG, you just won't have the guides whilst you're shooting.

The Q, on the other hand, will give you the full DNG regardless of whether you're shooting 28/35/50 whilst still being able to see the framelines when you're shooting.
Yep, and when you import the DNG into LR, it's already cropped. So you would have to undo all the crops in order to get 28mm back.. Which I think is a NEAT implementation. As it allows you to see what the heck you were doing/thinking in the moment.
 

cam

Active member
Yep, and when you import the DNG into LR, it's already cropped. So you would have to undo all the crops in order to get 28mm back.. Which I think is a NEAT implementation. As it allows you to see what the heck you were doing/thinking in the moment.
I think it's *very* neat (I own and shoot with an RX1), amongst other things, which is why I'm avidly (vicariously?) reading this thread!

I actually like 28mm a lot, especially if I'm shooting at close range and/or in conjunction with an M and a 50mm attached.

One of the most enjoyable nights of shooting was with an M9 w/the old f/1 Noctilux attached and the original Fuji X100 (35/2). It was a party at the business down below... I'd like to say I shot what was appropriate for the moment (M9 outside in the dark, X100 inside with lights) but, some of the time, it was just shooting with whatever camera wasn't hanging.

Anyways, I found that because I could get close in these circumstances and that the Fuji allowed me to do so -- I was actually wishing, badly, for a 28mm that I could shoot real close.

28mm was my first camera's FOV and it's still near and dear to my heart.
 

aDam007

New member
Went out to support a friend's store opening party. Decided to bring the Q, and try the crop mode as much as possible. Natural light, between f/1.7 and f/5.6 a bit wonky with the strobing pinks, purples and blues, but kinda cool. (Admittedly I'm not a great friend. I was only there about 15-20 minutes before I got hungry and ran off to eat German style Pork Knuckle.):
















 

jonoslack

Active member
Really enjoyed that. Thank you both.

I'll wager we'll see many used Qs for sale eventually, after the infatuation wanes and folks realize 28mm is not for them. I've got no data, but my sense is the number who enjoy the close working distances a 28 requires is relatively low. I, and many others, love it in the GR, but the whole gestalt is different with that little guy.

John
You could be right John . . . but I suspect that it's the beginning of a lot of love affairs - you don't see that many Ricoh GR's for sale, but you do see lots of praise for it.

We've just come back from two weeks in China. Most of my shooting was done with an M, but normally I would have taken a camera with a zoom (µ43 or similar) this time I took the Q to see if it was possible to use it as an 'allrounder' - I think it worked surprisingly well:

Snapshots from China
It may take a minute to load

There's a short article to go with it which I'll try and post in a day or so.
 

uhoh7

New member
Jono, when you have a chance I would love to see the following image full size:
http://www.slack.co.uk/2015/Product_Images_files/qinchina/index.html#/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.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thank you Jono,
looking at your images I even start changing my mind and start to believe if 28 is not the more interesting focal length than 35mm.
SPecially with a fast 28mm where you can have shallow DOF.
To me the images look very good.

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
 
Top