I've just watched a couple of Leica afficionados talk about the camera; both were making the point that this camera is actually kind of a bargain in Leica land - and they're right, in a way, because this camera is still the cheapest way to get a current FF Leica (with a giant resolution push, no less), and you get a wonderful lens with it (or you can see things the other way round, actually). But I'm sure most people won't see it like that.
For me, the Q2 has a lot of pull - although I'm simply not a 28mm guy (though still infatuated with the GR), and as much as the built-in cropping abilities get emphasised, that's just not the way I function: I want to use all the available image area (you get that in the uncropped RAW file, in theory - but that won't be framed well at all, of course) - or else why do I buy a camera with such a huge pixel count? And that's actually another point I'm not too happy about: Yes, I know, the race is on and one has to go with the flow, so the Q2 actually uses the highest resolution full frame sensor to date (that looks eerily similar to the Panasonic S1R's, btw.), but this gives you humongous files that will weigh down on your storage solution as well as demand a lot of horsepower for post processing ... (you'd better get a couple of high-volume UHS-II cards, too).
All that said (and strongly maintained for the time being), Leica did everything right for the target audience. It's, in my book, a fantastic camera for people that, somewhat thankfully for all concerned , are not me.
This may be a ground-breaking Leica, and a gorgeous camera to behold and shoot with, I have no doubt. But it's not a do-all, end-all proposition. It's extremely niche - though fortunately for Leica, also extremely hipster-friendly.
Which, again, makes it less attractive for me ...
But I tought the same thing about the M10 before I fell for it.
I'd better not try one, then ... 🆒
Or else I might have to surrender a lot of other gear. Well, things could be worse ...
M.
