Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Leica Q  (Read 4509 times)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Leica Q
« on: June 10, 2015, 12:37:35 pm »

Good article on the Leica.

The Panasonic m4/3 system has a relatively small 12-35 (24-70 equiv) constant f2.8 zoom that sells for ~$900, and is really nice for shooting street. It has an even smaller 14-45 that's notably slower (f3-something to 5.6) that may be even better. I sometimes think the problem with companies like Leica is that they define what they want to do in terms of lens qualities (the optically best and fastest, and nothing but the best and fastest) even when those qualities have become somewhat irrelevant to the kind of shooting the camera will be used for. If you're making a street-shooter as opposed to a general purpose camera, then I don't really think you need to worry too much about isolating images with narrow depth of field, because that's really not what street shooting is all about. And with current ISO characteristics, there's not much practical difference (for street) between f2.8 and f1.7, unless you really worry a lot about DoF -- you just shoot at ISO 800 instead of 400, and quality will still be excellent. Also, for most street shooters, you really don't even have to go as far as Panasonic did. I do like the range on their lenses, but would be happy enough with a 35-70 equivalent. And that Leica could build -- it just wouldn't necessarily be the optically best and fastest. I'd buy this camera with a short zoom, even at that price, but not with a fixed lens, although I worry a  bit that Michael says that the camera doesn't feel that much smaller than an M.

About the lens cap. Another annoying thing about Leicas (I've had both film and digital Ms) is the goddamn lens caps, and this has been a problem forever. I once lost a lens cap, and got in touch with a West Coast Leica dealer who would sell me one...for $28, if I remember correctly. I bought a knock-off for three or four dollars. In any case, somebody once was making rubber lens covers that were actually stretchy, and that you could stretch to put over a lens shade, and quickly peel off when you needed to shoot. I don't know if they still make them, but with this awkward arrangement that Michael describes, it sounds like Leica should have included one with the camera. I live in the desert, and on windy days there's always dust flying around: you really don't want to walk around all day with an exposed lens.

So far, the best camera I've found for street is the Panasonic GX7, which really seems to have been designed for that specific purpose. It's small, has a nice set of short zooms, has a somewhat maneuverable view screen (not completely twistable, but you can push it down so you can shoot from the waist, or crank it ~45 degrees up so you can shoot overhead) and has a handy button that will turn off the viewers (eyepiece and screen) when you're not using them the better to save the batteries. If goes from full-off to first shot in less than a second and the quality is good enough for me. Still, the Leica with its full frame would be tempting...if it had a short zoom.

Leica made its reputation as a PJ/street shooter, and I think they really need to sit down and design a camera around shooting requirements, rather than lens qualities. Those are very different things. At one time, back in the HCB days, the lenses had to be ultra fast because the film speeds were so low -- not because shooters like HCB or Capa wanted to isolate images with narrow depth of field. (What famous HCB or Capa shot does that? There might be some, but off hand, I can't think of any.)
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2015, 02:40:58 pm »

Although I have (and really like and often use) Oly's 12–40/2.8, it's the little Panasonic 14–45mm I choose for travel. In its sweet spot, f/5.6–8, this lens is a gem. Pairs up great with both my Oly E-M1 & Panasonic GX7.

I also don't see much practical point to the Q. IMO an X2, or even an X Vario, would be a better choice for a modern single-lens Leica.

-Dave-
Logged

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2015, 09:56:25 pm »

I pre-ordered one.  Pretty excited about this camera.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2015, 09:09:05 am »

Good overview of the new Q. Since I prefer 35mm, I bought the Typ 113 (Leica X). The X Vario, the X, and now the Q, they all seem to share the same chassis and concept.

I wonder if the lens on the Q has the same Leica imposed limitation on max aperture when focused close? Below about 1m, the max aperture is f2.8. I don't find this to be a problem, but I am curious about it.

I wish the X had the EVF...

JeanMichel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 524
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2015, 01:31:37 pm »

I wish the M had as good an EVF as the Q but as an accessory. The combination of the superb RF + superb EVF would get my money. Hopefully in the next M.

Now, that would really tickle my fancy! I have an M9 (and 3,4 and 6)  and now do not have the $$$ to or overwhelming reason get an M240, but a an M with both RF and EVF would push me over to my dealer. The Q is not for me but I like the idea a lot, in film days I used 2 or 3 bodies with particular lenses attached to each and rarely changed lenses so a non-interchangeable body/lens is OK with me but i do realize that this does have a lot of limitations.
Jean-Michel
Logged

AlfSollund

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2015, 05:34:06 am »

Good article on the Leica.
...
...

Leica made its reputation as a PJ/street shooter, and I think they really need to sit down and design a camera around shooting requirements, rather than lens qualities. ...

Good article!

If I could wish; a follow-up on article and in this thread about handling, how good the MF implementation is, how well suited it is in terms of handling to different uses such as street/ people, etc...

I havent tried the Q, but jugding on M9, M, X1 I belive Leica previously have done exactly that, sat down and designed cameraes around shooting requirements with M and X series. That is to be precise MY requirements  :D. So, different people have different requirements, let hear those and how Q meet them.

IMO the Q is worthless for my use since I would need to attach a OVF. Also Leica repeat their major error of not having a dedicated ISO switch. I also miss information on start-up / wake-up time that currently is a weak point on consumer Leicas.
Logged
-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2015, 07:12:25 am »

Subscribe to Sean Ried's site...reidreviews.com

He dives into all of these issues in detail from a street shooters perspective. He's been a Q Alpha tester since last year and has spent months working with it.

Michael


Logged

JeanMichel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 524
Re: Leica Q
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2015, 10:43:35 am »

Subscribe to Sean Ried's site...reidreviews.com

He dives into all of these issues in detail from a street shooters perspective. He's been a Q Alpha tester since last year and has spent months working with it.

Michael




Thank you, Michael, for your video interview and article on the Q. People who would like to read more about the camera and see images made by testers can also visit http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/. That blog has a link to  review by Jono Slack (6 months of camera use) and within his review there are a couple more links to other testers, therefore real information.
Jean-Michel
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up