Leica M(240) to Q....?

[PaulJ]

Firstly, I don't currently do a lot of digital photography. My first love is film and I don't see that changing. I have no antipathy towards digital. In fact, I currently own an M(240) and I like using it and sharing the lenses I own with my M7. However.....

Recently, I've started to conclude that my digital photography needs would be served by a Leica Q. I've had a couple of plays with one - shooting street - and it seems like almost the perfect camera for my needs - which would be street, travel / reportage type shooting. Consequently, I'm seriously considering swapping my M(240) in favour of a Q.

Cropping digitally from 28mm down to 50mm doesn't phase me as I don't need to print bigger than the 50mm crop would allow. 35mm would probably be where I'd use the camera most. I'll shoot RAW, so a 28mm version will always be available anyway.

I'm not looking to be dissuaded but I really would welcome insight from anyone who's either made a similar switch or has both cameras.

 

[dalethorn]

Firstly, I don't currently do a lot of digital photography. My first love is film and I don't see that changing. I have no antipathy towards digital. In fact, I currently own an M(240) and I like using it and sharing the lenses I own with my M7. However.....
Recently, I've started to conclude that my digital photography needs would be served by a Leica Q. I've had a couple of plays with one - shooting street - and it seems like almost the perfect camera for my needs - which would be street, travel / reportage type shooting. Consequently, I'm seriously considering swapping my M(240) in favour of a Q.
Cropping digitally from 28mm down to 50mm doesn't phase me as I don't need to print bigger than the 50mm crop would allow. 35mm would probably be where I'd use the camera most. I'll shoot RAW, so a 28mm version will always be available anyway.
I'm not looking to be dissuaded but I really would welcome insight from anyone who's either made a similar switch or has both cameras.

You've covered the format and crop issues very well, so all that's left as far as I can tell are the physical aspects of the camera itself. It weighs about 1 lb 7 oz in use, and is easy to manipulate. The optical viewfinder I never used, but if it's essential to you, that might be the show-stopper (or not).

 

[PaulJ]

Thanks for the response. The weight isn't really an issue, in fact, I actually like a bit of heft to a camera; it suggests solidity and quality in my mind. The viewfinder is one of the selling points as (in my limited experience of such things) it's about the best one I've used. The capability to switch between "focal lengths" at the touch of a button and without having to move your eye from the viewfinder is, for me, another plus.

All cameras have limitations, of course, but I've tried to be as objective as I can when matching the features I need to the kind of shooting I'll do with the camera and I'm struggling to see any major downside to moving from the M(240) to a Q. When I spoke to the Leica dealer the other day, he also mentioned that the Q has the same sensor as the SL and has better low light response than the M(240) - not that I've ever found the M240 to be problematic when it comes to low light.

As I'd be moving to a fixed lens camera, I considered the Sony RX1R ii but I didn't like the button layout as much and that's a big deal for me as the ability to use it intuitively seems critical for a camera that is, in essence, a point and shoot.

The only problem (in the UK) is that there are very few "Q" available. Still, if it's good, it's worth waiting for.....

 

[rbelyell]

the only issue i see is will you miss the fun and flexibilty of changing lenses? i didnt think i would when i bought the rx1, but it turned out i did. in particular i missed having a portrait lens. just my personal 2¢.

 

[PaulJ]

Tony, thanks for the response. A very valid point - but one I have considered.

I have 4 lenses at present (28mm Elmarit-M, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm Summicrons). The Q offers 28/35 and 50, so I won't have a digital portrait lens either. However, I mostly do street, travel and reportage with digital and seldom use the 90mm on the M(240) as it's not the quickest to focus and 35/50 are pretty good at "environmental" portraits.

 

[dalethorn]

Tony, thanks for the response. A very valid point - but one I have considered.
I have 4 lenses at present (28mm Elmarit-M, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm Summicrons). The Q offers 28/35 and 50, so I won't have a digital portrait lens either. However, I mostly do street, travel and reportage with digital and seldom use the 90mm on the M(240) as it's not the quickest to focus and 35/50 are pretty good at "environmental" portraits.

For portraits when I use the fixed 35 mm equiv. lens of the Leica X2, I back off a little, then in post processing I'll apply the 'pinch' effect so faces look less bloated from the medium-close perspective. In the end though, the final arbiter is getting the best look through the viewfinder to begin with.

 

[rflove]

I use both, the M240 with various lenses and the Q. Lately I find myself taking the Q with me a lot. It's a good camera to be sure and it's really handy to just point and shoot... Having said that, the M240 with the 50mm f1.4 will blow it out of the water for certain types of shots. Good as the 28mm lens is on the Q, it will not duplicate what the 50mm Lux can do... Now, If the Q had a fast zoom of say, 28mm - 100mm, It might just be the only camera I would need.
The faster shutter speed alone is so convenient.. And the AF and macro feature are also fantastically useful. I wonder when Leica will offer such camera?

These were shot with the Q yesterday. Practically P&S with minimal adjustments in LR5

 

[PaulJ]

For portraits when I use the fixed 35 mm equiv. lens of the Leica X2, I back off a little, then in post processing I'll apply the 'pinch' effect so faces look less bloated from the medium-close perspective. In the end though, the final arbiter is getting the best look through the viewfinder to begin with.

Most "portraits" I'll ever shoot with a Q would be environmental in nature, so it's very unlikely that the person would fill more than about 20-25% of the frame. If I really want get close up and personal, I could use my M7 and 90mm Summicron.

 

[PaulJ]

I use both, the M240 with various lenses and the Q. Lately I find myself taking the Q with me a lot. It's a good camera to be sure and it's really handy to just point and shoot... Having said that, the M240 with the 50mm f1.4 will blow it out of the water for certain types of shots. Good as the 28mm lens is on the Q, it will not duplicate what the 50mm Lux can do... Now, If the Q had a fast zoom of say, 28mm - 100mm, It might just be the only camera I would need.
The faster shutter speed alone is so convenient.. And the AF and macro feature are also fantastically useful. I wonder when Leica will offer such camera?

These were shot with the Q yesterday. Practically P&S with minimal adjustments in LR5

View attachment 4689

View attachment 4691

Nice photos.

As most digital shooting I do / will ever do in the foreseeable future is of the "point and shoot" variety, the Q is sounding increasingly attractive. Anything more serious will be shot on film with either my M7 or, more likely, my Hasselblads.

I've never been a fan of zoom lenses. I've had some good ones but there is often a compromise - especially when trying to keep them compact. The best I had were f2.8 Nikkors - 14-24mm, 28-70mm and 70-200mm. they (along with a D800) were what I traded for the M240 and a couple of lenses. I don't do wildlife or sports photography anymore and I really neither want nor need to lug all that kit around.

A travel rig for me, in future, will hopefully be a Q + M7 and 35 / 90 Summicrons (the M7 would, most likely, be for B&W).

 

[rflove]

Nice photos.

As most digital shooting I do / will ever do in the foreseeable future is of the "point and shoot" variety, the Q is sounding increasingly attractive. Anything more serious will be shot on film with either my M7 or, more likely, my Hasselblads.

I've never been a fan of zoom lenses. I've had some good ones but there is often a compromise - especially when trying to keep them compact. The best I had were f2.8 Nikkors - 14-24mm, 28-70mm and 70-200mm. they (along with a D800) were what I traded for the M240 and a couple of lenses. I don't do wildlife or sports photography anymore and I really neither want nor need to lug all that kit around.

A travel rig for me, in future, will hopefully be a Q + M7 and 35 / 90 Summicrons (the M7 would, most likely, be for B&W).

I share your feelings about zoom lenses. When I had them I was always wanting to use a prime... It's a conflicting conundrum all right. But when I was shooting with Olympus and Panasonic micro four thirds cameras, there were a couple of very fine zoom and compact lenses that I used. The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8, and the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 were really nice and quite versatile. I do find myself wishing I had a 50mm with the Q whenever I shoot people, specially head shots.

 

[PaulJ]

Well, I went and did it....!! I now don't have an M(240) but I do have a Q in its place. I must say that it took some consideration and it's entirely possible that, sometime in the future, I might re-acquite an M(240) or a successor. However, for the relatively limited amount of digital photography I do and the topics I cover (daily walk-round / commute / travel / street / reportage) the Q appears to give me what I need - in bucket-loads. Here's a first attempt at a macro - a potted Acer that stands by our front door. A bit of LR / Nik Color Efex Pro4 adjustments.
I'll be taking the Q to work with me this week and I'll try to shoot a few piccies to post sometime next week. I'm very happy with the Q, though.....

 

[dalethorn]

Well, I went and did it....!! I now don't have an M(240) but I do have a Q in its place. I must say that it took some consideration and it's entirely possible that, sometime in the future, I might re-acquite an M(240) or a successor. However, for the relatively limited amount of digital photography I do and the topics I cover (daily walk-round / commute / travel / street / reportage) the Q appears to give me what I need - in bucket-loads. Here's a first attempt at a macro - a potted Acer that stands by our front door. A bit of LR / Nik Color Efex Pro4 adjustments.
I'll be taking the Q to work with me this week and I'll try to shoot a few piccies to post sometime next week. I'm very happy with the Q, though.....View attachment 4696

When I saw this, I thought it had an 'effortless' look, like the camera did it with one hand tied behind its back (so to speak).

 

[PaulJ]

When I saw this, I thought it had an 'effortless' look, like the camera did it with one hand tied behind its back (so to speak).

Thanks. Glad you like it.

I made a decision to only shoot RAW (for now) so I can see what sort of quality I get at the top end. As a result, the file did need a little tweaking to get the levels, brightness and saturation as I like it. Not much - but a worthwhile exercise. Although this was using the macro mode (very critical on focus) I was impressed how easily the camera coped.

I think I'm going to have fun with the Q......