Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Leica Q2  (Read 3973 times)

drralph

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
    • Ralph's Instagram
Leica Q2
« on: March 08, 2019, 11:06:38 pm »

I want it, but I'm not sure why.  It is gorgeous.  I'm sure it will take superb photos.  I am sick and tired of dust balls on my sensor.  I would love to travel with a tiny package plus a tripod, pano system, and filters, and be able to do what I need to do.

I compared the size of the camera to the Sony aRII which I currently own.  Not much different.  The Leica is less deep, but about the same size in width and height.  the Leica is only 100 grams lighter when the Sony has a 35/f1.8 attached.  The Leica lens is better, and is weather sealed.  But I did fine in the New York drizzle recently with the Sony combo.  $250 for a battery?  Come on, Leica.

I admit that I am in love with the red dot.  But so far, the main reason I see to own the Q2 is to have a sealed system that will never be plagued by dust balls, and will serve as a highly capable street and travel camera for the next few years.  It will be a shame to give away that glass when the body becomes outmoded.

leuallen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2019, 12:19:23 am »

Buy an interchangeable lens camera and seal a lens on it and never take it off. Much cheaper.
Logged

Internaut

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2019, 07:34:07 am »

Buy an interchangeable lens camera and seal a lens on it and never take it off. Much cheaper.

With the FE 2/28 attached, I call my A7II the pauper’s Q.  Nothing like as satisfying to hold and use, I’m sure, but it does what I need it to do.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2019, 10:41:05 am »

With the FE 2/28 attached, I call my A7II the pauper’s Q.  Nothing like as satisfying to hold and use, I’m sure, but it does what I need it to do.

And I'm pretty damned sure that your pictures would be just the same, regardless of camera.

Seemed like one of the least interesting reviews yet! Unless, of course, you get your kicks from seeing some guy standing in the shower like a plumber whose mate got so bored he decided to resign, and turned the water on before walking out. As for the domestic bits... really? That helps move the review along?

But hey, maybe in Canada they do things dfferently and on a plane that escapes me. As many do.

;-)
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 10:44:46 am by Rob C »
Logged

drralph

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
    • Ralph's Instagram
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2019, 03:05:33 am »

With the FE 2/28 attached, I call my A7II the pauper’s Q.

It seems the glass is the difference.  The a7II with a Sony 28 f/2 is about the same size and weight, but no one would say this Sony glass is comparable to the Leica.  Zeiss makes some cine lenses with speed even better than the Leica, but much larger, and at a cost about the same as the Q2 for the lens alone.  I know what you mean by "does what I need it to do."  I have been posting to Instagram recently, and find that images that would not pass muster for print at exhibition size look superb on the small screen.

I am not sure I would have the discipline to never remove the lens from the body, or swap it out for some purpose.  A dirty sensor is just a matter of time.  I have found sensor dirt to the the greatest Achilles heel of the entire digital camera genre.  The never ending battle.  Even professional cleanings are inadequate and short-lived.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2019, 07:58:03 am »

It seems the glass is the difference.  The a7II with a Sony 28 f/2 is about the same size and weight, but no one would say this Sony glass is comparable to the Leica.  Zeiss makes some cine lenses with speed even better than the Leica, but much larger, and at a cost about the same as the Q2 for the lens alone.  I know what you mean by "does what I need it to do."  I have been posting to Instagram recently, and find that images that would not pass muster for print at exhibition size look superb on the small screen.

I am not sure I would have the discipline to never remove the lens from the body, or swap it out for some purpose.  A dirty sensor is just a matter of time.  I have found sensor dirt to the the greatest Achilles heel of the entire digital camera genre.  The never ending battle.  Even professional cleanings are inadequate and short-lived.


Not one to tempt fate, but I have never cleaned a sensor in my life. My D200 was mine from new - I was told by the wholesaler that it was the first on the island - and the later D700 does its own housekeeping. Of course, as I almost always stay open wider than around f4, perhaps it helps hide problems. That said, I have a habit of only changing lenses at home because I gave up on the distraction of carrying alternative focal lengths around with me.

Rob
« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 09:58:03 am by Rob C »
Logged

HSakols

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1156
    • Hugh Sakols Photography
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2019, 08:56:17 am »

Jewelry
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2019, 10:17:55 am »

Jewelry


Well, I wouldn't say it doesn't have charm, but cropping down and somehow converting that vandalism into the advertising fantasy land of similarity with interchangeable lenses strikes me as marketing aimed at exactly the type of person who brings the brand a bad name among other snappers: the kind of guy with lots of dosh and no idea what cameras, formats and dfferent lenses do and are bought to achieve.

The marketing does it no favours as a serious camera. And at the price, it is serious in at least one way. That said, if Leica feels it can produce - and sell - a set of cameras with fixed lenses going from around 24mm focal length up to about 135mm, then it might have a point, but even less for my bank account. Like buying matched Purdeys, and probably great for the same demographic, which clearly leaves me feeling excluded yet further... right, I care; count the teardrops.

But as ever with Leica, if somebody has one they want to throw away...

;-)


« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 03:06:38 pm by Rob C »
Logged

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
    • Photographs
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2019, 10:38:35 am »

Jewelry

Any camera that sits on a shelf unused is jewelry. Some is just prettier.   ;D

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2019, 03:06:04 pm »

Any camera that sits on a shelf unused is jewelry. Some is just prettier.   ;D


And there the distinction: pretty equates with jewels and not pretty with paperweights.

For some people, there is a further distinction that makes paperweights what they are only if the object is irredeemably kaput; I try to be a little less radical.

Jewellery can also be vulgar, which leads to some further interesting thoughts about the relationship with photography.

:-)

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2019, 06:02:24 pm »

Any camera that sits on a shelf unused is jewelry.

I think of my Kiev-branded clone of a prewar Zeiss Contax II (see attached photo) as an historical artifact.  Backstory: the occupying Soviet army hauled off the machine tools to make the German Contax rangefinder cameras and lenses, and deposited them in Ukraine, where these clones were manufactured for many years.

My father owned one of the original Contaxes; it was the first "serious" camera I shot with and it was a gem.  It handled better than my high school physics teacher's Leica M3, which he occasionally let me borrow, and the collapsible 50mm Sonnar lens was excellent, despite having nary a trace of antireflective coating on its elements.

My father's German Contax disappeared sometime during one of my parents' moves, but he picked up the clone shown in the attachment during a business trip to Eastern Europe while he was serving as a U.S. foreign service officer in the 1970s.

I've thought many times about running a roll of film through it to how well it still works, but I've always backed away at the last minute.  It seems somehow inappropriate—disrespectful of that fine old Zeiss Contax—so the camera sits on a shelf, gathering dust, like many another Soviet-era monument.

OmerV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
    • Photographs
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2019, 08:51:57 pm »

I think of my Kiev-branded clone of a prewar Zeiss Contax II (see attached photo) as an historical artifact.  Backstory: the occupying Soviet army hauled off the machine tools to make the German Contax rangefinder cameras and lenses, and deposited them in Ukraine, where these clones were manufactured for many years.

My father owned one of the original Contaxes; it was the first "serious" camera I shot with and it was a gem.  It handled better than my high school physics teacher's Leica M3, which he occasionally let me borrow, and the collapsible 50mm Sonnar lens was excellent, despite having nary a trace of antireflective coating on its elements.

My father's German Contax disappeared sometime during one of my parents' moves, but he picked up the clone shown in the attachment during a business trip to Eastern Europe while he was serving as a U.S. foreign service officer in the 1970s.

I've thought many times about running a roll of film through it to how well it still works, but I've always backed away at the last minute.  It seems somehow inappropriate—disrespectful of that fine old Zeiss Contax—so the camera sits on a shelf, gathering dust, like many another Soviet-era monument.

Mechanical cameras have a charm that seems to elude our digital versions. And even as lovely as this Q2 is, I doubt it will be remembered with the same fondness as the pre-electrics are.

My own favorite camera was the original Canon F-1. Wonderful, basic picture taking machine.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2019, 07:03:57 am »

Mechanical cameras have a charm that seems to elude our digital versions. And even as lovely as this Q2 is, I doubt it will be remembered with the same fondness as the pre-electrics are.

My own favorite camera was the original Canon F-1. Wonderful, basic picture taking machine.

I still have my almost unused F3 Nikon living beside me; that said, what I would most like to have back would be my 500C/M 'blad system. Whether or not it would get much use at today's film prices after I finish the stuff in the freezer, is another matter altogether, but when it comes down to picking a camera for doing considered portraiture, by which I mean people shots rather than simply heads, I think it would take prefernce over my Nikons, which were for me about rapid shooting and mobility, the 6x6 always having a tripod beneath it. But hey, the joy of a fixed camera orientation good for all shapes!

Rob

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2019, 10:09:24 pm »

I find the proportions kinds of ugly, actually. It's not wide enough, the lens is too large for the body, and the featureless expanse of texture across the front lacks appeal. Look at the buttons, bland rectangles that could have come off some cheap chinese iPod knockoff. Everything about it screams a kind of bland industrial anti-design-language that is so lazy as to be insulting. At this point the message appears to be "look, the only thing that matters is the price tag. It doesn't have to look like anything at all, it just has to have a red dot."

And, of course, the price is simply stupid for a very limited camera like this. 28mm on a FF body? That's silly.

This thing is jewelry, which will of course be rationalized with tremendous vigor by a group of people blessed with an excess of money, and a deficit of sense and taste.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2019, 10:32:08 pm by amolitor »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4958
    • Flicker photos
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2019, 12:05:56 am »

28mm sounds about right.  24mm tends to distort building lines too much.  35mm often is too narrow.  I'm thinking street photography.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2019, 09:30:24 am »

28mm sounds about right.  24mm tends to distort building lines too much.  35mm often is too narrow. I'm thinking street photography.

Then you'd have to buy some black tape, thus adding to the cost. Why not a simple P&S for that? It's all HC-B used. Wait... didn't he think 35mm too wide?

;-)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4958
    • Flicker photos
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2019, 10:01:57 am »

35mm is OK too.  Sometimes too narrow.  Sometimes 28mm gives a little extra you need.  My issue is with 24mm and building lines. But then again, I'm not HCB> :)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3690
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2019, 03:53:09 pm »

I think of my Kiev-branded clone of a prewar Zeiss Contax II (see attached photo) as an historical artifact.  Backstory: the occupying Soviet army hauled off the machine tools to make the German Contax rangefinder cameras and lenses, and deposited them in Ukraine, where these clones were manufactured for many years.

The Kiev cameras are often rough mechanically, but the Jupiter lenses (Zeiss Sonnars) tend to be really good. The 8M (50mm f/2, with aperture setting detents) on your Kiev is my fav version of that particular design, German or Soviet. The Leica Thread Mount versions of the same lenses are calibrated differently to the Leica standard and so don't focus accurately at all distances on non-Soviet cameras.

The camera I keep on display is an Epson R-D1. Served me well from late 2004 though early this decade but now is just plain worn out. My 1950s Zeiss rangefinders, OTOH, all work great!

-Dave-
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 492
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2019, 01:28:09 pm »

i always thought the first Q was by far the best deal from Leica....nice little camera for an ok price...
was really excited to see the Q2 coming out, now the reviews are in....lens is soso, AF is ok, in camera processing is pretty bad (something i don't use anyway but still), high ISO is behind the market, some crazy operating choices (no manual at all in video? no manual option on a leica?!) and the latest: the sensor is more then a stop behind the A7RIII in DR across the board....

for all the talk about leica lenses, the sony 24 GM is considered the best 24 out there and the 135 is now the sharpest, highest resolving lens available....and both render detail and color absolutely beautiful....

i was excited about that sensor, was hoping the SR1 might put some pressure on sony, i am pretty sure panasonic will get better performance out of it but the A7RIII is now the model to be replaced pretty soon....the Q and SR1 are barely shipping....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3690
Re: Leica Q2
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2019, 04:55:30 pm »

Leica's target customer isn't someone who cares about whether or not a particular Sony model offers an extra stop in test-bench-measurable dynamic range. The Q2's lens is the same one as the Q's, too, and is really good. And the test bench performance of Sony 24 & 135mms just isn't relevant when evaluating a fixed 28mm lens camera that is one part fine & dandy pic-taker and one part *luxury object. Sonys have zilch status cachet.

-Dave-

*This isn't a dig at Leica…if they hadn't found their niche in the luxury market they'd be out of business. More power to 'em.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up