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..."[...]
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.
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.Maybe the problem is not that the Leica is so expensive but rather the GR, Nikon A, RX1, DF etc are so cheap.
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.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.
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....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.
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.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.
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.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..."
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.
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.
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.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