News / Rumor Leica Q Type 116 Leaked Image, Specs

D

dalethorn

Guest
If the M and a 28 mm prime are vastly beyond ridiculous, then the Q could be beyond ridiculous, otherwise the Q is an incredible price bargain, compared to the M plus 28 mm Leica prime.
 

jloden

All-Pro
Jun 30, 2012
Jay
[...]
Despite the initial excitement because this camera sounded just like something I once wished I had, I really already have it. Twice. With one option that's smaller and one option that's better in terms of my preferences.
I'm mostly just teasing you because I remembered everything you said about the RX1 in your initial thoughts about it when I saw the Q announcement. I kid you not, the first thing I thought when I read the release was "geez, that sounds like it was designed to Ray's exact specifications! FF sensor, 28mm, manual zone focus..." :D

That's great to hear you've found such satisfaction in the DF still Ray! I can understand that, my Nikon system is my workhorse for events and portraits, and despite being a generation behind on both my camera bodies there I don't feel any compunction to upgrade. They do a great job and have everything I need. :thumbsup:

The problem I still have is everything else, where I like small cameras: documentary, reportage, travel, and everyday shooting. I've yet to find that 'Goldilocks' system that balances quality, features, and size just right for me. The search continues! haha.
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
To Q or not to Q:

The following is an audible (legible?) rumination on the pros and cons of the Q, taking into account my shooting preferences and ridiculous gear lineup.

Why is the Q better than my M9?

- it is smaller and lighter. After a few years of carrying the M9 and a few lenses everywhere, every day, I found myself using it less and less as much lighter cameras increased in image quality and overall performance. The Q is even slimmer than a film M (which I love) and a fair bit lighter.

- I love fast wide angle lenses. I'm pretty much a 28 and 50 shooter, although I sometimes prefer even wider, like 25 or 21. 28 is my limit for a good walkaround lens. I'm also love shallow depth of field and low light shooting with no flash. The lens of the Q is made for this.

- great high ISO performance. The M9 struggles with ISO's higher than 1600, and I'm betting the Q will be perfectly usable up to 6400.

- video. While it won't be anything flash, the Q shoots 1080 60p video, which is enough for general purposes. For dedicated video shooting I have the Panasonic GH3 and GM1.

- image stabilization. Say no more.

- fast AF. Manually focusing the M9 is great when you've got it down, but sometimes it's a hassle, and conspicuously shows you're taking a photo. Autofocus enables sharp captures from any angle, especially when coupled with using the LCD screen.

- silent electronic shutter from 1/2000 to 1/16,000, and very quiet leaf shutter, unlike the KACHOK-fsssszzzzzzht of the M9 that only reaches 1/4000. Shooting in bright Australian sunlight can necessitate higher shutter speeds.

- 10fps burst mode with raw files! I love using high speed burst mode for action shots, even with wide angle lenses. It might even be possible to use this for sweep panoramas, to be stitched later in post.

- crop mode creates pseudo 35 and 50 focal lengths. I haven't done the figures, but I'm guessing that the 35mm crop would have about the same depth of field as my Contax T3 with its 35mm f2.8 lens, and the 50mm crop would be about f3.5 or f4. Not bad at all.

The 35mm crop is about 15mp and the 50mm crop is 8mp. That's like having an aps-c sensor and a somewhat smaller sensor in the same body, and I took many satisfying photos with the 8mp Canon 30D. For a lot of purposes, 8mp is enough.

In theory (at least) I could use the Q as a 28, a 35, or a 50, albeit at different crop factors and resolutions. I already use the Ricoh GR in this fashion and find the versatility very enjoyable and useful.

The Q is essentially a blending of my two favourite cameras: the M9 and the GR. It has the body, handling and image quality of the M9 (at minimum) with a 28mm lens that is faster and potentially of better quality than the GR.

Why is my M9 better than the Q?

- I already have one. This cannot be underestimated. The M9 cost me AUD $9300 in 2010, and five years on, it is still chugging and producing wonderful images. The Q costs AUD$5700 street price, which is almost 2/3rds of what I paid for the M9. That's almost $6000 I don't have to spend.

- interchangeable lenses. I have over ten M-mount lenses that range from gorgeously rich 75's to ultrawides. I can select from a wealth of lens characters and take advantage of the whole sensor and resolution. Some of my favourite photos were taken with the M9 and the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, which I can't do with the Q.

- the RF mechanism. The other side of manual focus is that I can make very clear, deliberate choices about what I want in focus, and a split-image RF is a very good way to do this. I have yet to try a Q in earnest, but if Leica's previous AF performance is anything to go by, I might have some trouble getting the pinpoint focus that I enjoy with the M9. Manual focus with the Q is subject to more faffing about, even if it has focus peaking.

- decent file sizes. The M9 files are about 17mb each, whereas the Q's files are 40mb. FORTY! You get about 550 images on a 64GB card, which is bananas. I use a 16GB card on the M9 and get about 700. Then there's the storage space required for the voluminous shooting that such an awesome camera would inspire, plus the possible need for computer upgrades to handle the processing of such large files.

And what about my other cameras?

- the Ricoh GR is already the 'poor man's Q'. It's the Q before the Q - that would make in a P, haha. Unlike the Q, it can fit in my pocket and I don't even notice it until it's time to shoot.

- the Panasonic GM1 - while it seems unreasonable to compare a tiny m43 camera with a solid enthusiast level full frame camera, hear me out. I often carry the GM1 and a few fast Oly primes instead of the M9 because it is very small, light, shoots super video, and the image quality is good enough for daily shooting. Not everything needs to be a full frame extravaganza of colour and razor sharp pixel-level acuity.

- the Panasonic LX7 is disturbingly fun and good. While the dynamic range isn't even at the level of a m43 camera, it surpasses my much loved Ricoh GRD III for image quality in terms of dynamic range, colour, and edge to edge sharpness. The centre is even sharper than the GRD III, which is saying something. The 11fps burst mode is amazing for sports, and can also be used to quickly shoot multiple frame fusions which have much lower noise and better dynamic range.

At the end of the day, these are absolutely first world problems, and largely academic, because I'm not planning to buy a Q until at least late this year. But it sure is fun to think about it!
 

CM_SK

Regular
Apr 23, 2013
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Archiver: very well articulated debate (with self!). A few observations, least important first:

- file size etc is a red herring; storage gets cheaper as fast as needs go up - just dont worry about it.

- focus differences: IMO all part of the rangefinder / mirrorless differences set, each has pros and cons. From initial reports the Q is Oly EM-5 speed in its AF, which is all anyone needs.

- mainly though, I think your Q to M9 comparison is premature, as I really see the Q as the first in many steps by Leica to truly compete on performance and features (not on price of course) and thus there will be, I believe, other Q range models. If the new Qs do not include interchangeable lens models a la Sony, then for sure the next M models will have Q features, or better as befits top of range. If you see this happening, you could sell the M9 to fund the Q, and use it as a preview of the next 1-2 years of Leica tech (obviously hold your M lenses). My own view is that EVFs will replace rangefinders even at Leica, and even on the classic M series, for a host of reasons often discussed on this forum. I see the Q as the first big statement towards this end result at Leica.
 

El Guapo

Regular
Feb 3, 2014
The more I look at the Leica I do like its implementation. Like Ray I find I have become very accustomed to 28mm having been a GRD and GR user for some years. I previously stated the Leica is a little big, but perhaps this is a fair trade considering the sensor size. So does the lens grow.
Maybe the problem is not that the Leica is so expensive but rather the GR, Nikon A, RX1, DF etc are so cheap.
I wonder if you could tell a Nikon Coolpix A print from a Leica Q print at say 14x11 size?
For my audience at any print size and camera resolution content will always be king.
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
Maybe the problem is not that the Leica is so expensive but rather the GR, Nikon A, RX1, DF etc are so cheap.
If someone is looking for a camera and considers those other cameras competitive and acceptable, then to them the Q is expensive. But the Q is cheap compared to a similarly-equipped Leica M. So it's expensive or cheap, depending on which end of the market you're comparing from. Even though I buy Leicas, I don't consider those other cameras cheap, because I can't afford any of them after purchasing a Leica. Lots of people with limited income buy Leicas, when they know it's what they want and are willing to skip other things to get them.
 

El Guapo

Regular
Feb 3, 2014
Lots of people with limited income buy Leicas, when they know it's what they want and are willing to skip other things to get them.
Yes, I have been there. Back toward the end of my film days I bought a MP with 50mm cron, it was new but a special deal at the time. I did sell of most other things to acquire it. Right now I'd have to sell most everything (camera wise) to acquire an RX1.
 

Archiver

Top Veteran
Jul 11, 2010
Melbourne, Australia
As I sit at the desk, computer illuminating my hands as I type, the Ricoh GR and Pana GM1 + Oly 25/1.8 sit in front of me. They are small, quiet, and do 95% of what I want for casual and sometimes even paid photography. Together they are still half the weight of the Q. I can put a 21mm adapter on the GR and cover everything from 21-50. Add the Oly 45/1.8 and I've got focal range all the way through to 90mm.

But the Q beckons from the computer screen, tempting me with its full frame sensor that promises lush colours and deeply satisfying files; a f1.7 lens that will still have more shallow depth of field at 50mm crop than the GM1 and Oly 25; the handling of a Leica film rangefinder but much less weight.

Ahh, the siren call, it burns my ears and strickens my heart!
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
If the M and a 28 mm prime are vastly beyond ridiculous, then the Q could be beyond ridiculous, otherwise the Q is an incredible price bargain, compared to the M plus 28 mm Leica prime.
Dale, I was just talking about MY perspective on prices, knowing everyone has their own finances and financial priorities and photographic priorities and, hell, life priorities. If money was no object, I'd order a Q today (or would have the minute I could have). Or if shooting a single fixed lens camera was a priority, I might not have my Nikon gear and then could probably make sense of getting rid of an RX1 (which I presume I'd still have) and my Coolpix A and replacing both with a Q. And if photography was a higher priority in my life, relative to other things I find more important, I'd probably buy a Q. Or if the Q had hit instead of the RX1 2 1/2 years ago when I had a photo windfall of sorts, I might have stretched that much farther and bought it and never moved on from it. If my wife and I weren't taking a vacation that will cost about as much as a Q in a couple of months....

You get the idea. I'm not criticizing anyone else who can afford it for prioritizing a camera like this higher than I do. Just stating part of my rationale...

-Ray
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
Maybe the problem is not that the Leica is so expensive but rather the GR, Nikon A, RX1, DF etc are so cheap.
I wonder if you could tell a Nikon Coolpix A print from a Leica Q print at say 14x11 size?
For my audience at any print size and camera resolution content will always be king.
That print size / print quality rationale is one I see a lot as part of a reason to stick with m43 or APS and not go full frame. In my mind, that's only part of what I love about full frame, and given that I don't print that much or that large, a pretty small part for me. The full frame "moment of revelation" for me came within a short time of starting to shoot with an RX1, the first full frame digital camera I'd ever used and it came during a processing session. Pretty quickly it just became overwhelmingly evident that those RX1 files could take basically anything I could throw at them without complaining. I could do things with those files that no Fuji or m43 file I'd ever worked with would be able to handle without showing very visible scars. AND it became evident to me how much better those files were at higher ISOs, and I shoot a LOT at higher ISOs.

Admittedly, that particular sensor made for one hell of an introduction - if I'd tried full frame 3-4 years earlier with a Canon, I might have been highly unimpressed and never tried it again. That 24mp Sony sensor is fundamentally the same as the one still being used in the A7 II and the D750 and almost a twin to the 24mp in the Q, although that ones not made by Sony. It's incredible at base ISO and dame good above it. And now with my DF is nearly as good at base ISO and notably better above 800 or so.

So I fully GET the full frame thing. For me it's well beyond the question about print quality and size. It at least as much about what you can do with an image before you even think about printing it. To me the questions about the Q and whether it's right for me go in a different direction...

-Ray
 

Ray Sachs

Legend
Sep 21, 2010
Not too far from Philly
you should be able to figure it out...
I'm mostly just teasing you because I remembered everything you said about the RX1 in your initial thoughts about it when I saw the Q announcement. I kid you not, the first thing I thought when I read the release was "geez, that sounds like it was designed to Ray's exact specifications! FF sensor, 28mm, manual zone focus..." :D

That's great to hear you've found such satisfaction in the DF still Ray! I can understand that, my Nikon system is my workhorse for events and portraits, and despite being a generation behind on both my camera bodies there I don't feel any compunction to upgrade. They do a great job and have everything I need. :thumbsup:

The problem I still have is everything else, where I like small cameras: documentary, reportage, travel, and everyday shooting. I've yet to find that 'Goldilocks' system that balances quality, features, and size just right for me. The search continues! haha.
You're right - if I'd have designed it I'd have only handled a few small details a bit differently. I'd have used a Zeiss lens instead of Leica (I consider them equals and just personally prefer the Zeiss rendering), tried to make it close to the RX1 in size, and made it really easy to change between custom settings. Otherwise, I'd have done all of the same stuff.

And I wouldn't like the size or weight of Nikon's stuff either if my taste in lenses didn't run towards pretty small primes. My walk around kit is about the same size/weight as when I was shooting with Fuji and when I was shooting with an RX1, Nikon A, and XE1/14mm combo. If that wasn't the case, I'd probably want smaller/lighter too. And sometimes I do want REALLY small/light, but the Q wouldn't cut it for that - that's what the Coolpix A and G7X are for.

-Ray
 
D

dalethorn

Guest
Dale, I was just talking about MY perspective on prices, knowing everyone has their own finances and financial priorities and photographic priorities and, hell, life priorities.....Ray
Yes of course. But your description of expensive is pretty common, so I thought I'd use the 2-endian analogy to see how others relate, if they could possibly see it both ways. I sure see it both ways, given that my only income is social security.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom