Leica Q vs M with 28mm 2.8

I was also in Boston the past few days. I did not even think of Leica! I had with me two (very light) M 4/3 cameras in a tiny backpack. The lenses are most important to me. I had no clue that there exists a Leica store in Boston.

Raid

So over the weekend, I was in Boston so I visited the Leica Store in Boston hoping to play with the M10. To my surprise, they do not even have a demo in their store. This is a Leica owned store. Needless to say, I was a bit disappointed. I just don't understand why Leica consistently have the issue with their supply chain when launching a new product. When I used to run managed the supply chain in a previous life, it is a big no no to not have the new product and have a lot of the old product when transitioning. We spent months before the product launch to build up the inventory of the new product while working on reducing inventory of the existing one. Leica seems to do it the other way where they launch a product first, then work on building up inventory of the new product and at the same time dumping the old product at a discount. Not sure what they are achieving with that except for frustrated customers and many speculator profiting from the shortage.

On a another note, the Leica Store in Boston is located in Park Plaza hotel in Boston. In that same building is the M Steinert and Son store. A Steinway dealer. My daughter (8 yrs old) plays piano so she wanted to check it out. Wow, Leica ain't that expensive after all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Raid, the Leica store in Boston is in the Park Plaza hotel in downtown. Very near the Boston Common and Public garden. It is a fairly new store that was opened just last Sept. I try to visit it whenever I drop by downtown Boston.

As for m4/3, that was what I had with me. I took my old Lumix G1 and 2 lenses, the 42.5 Nocticron and the 25mm f1.2 Oly. Just ordered a new G85 to replace the E-M1.2 that I sold. Just can't find a bond with the Oly.
 
I guess the Steinways are like the old Leicas back in the days. What I mean by that is that they are precision hand made mechanical tools, built by craftsman that have pride in their work. The product is well built and will last a lifetime (reminds me of the old Patek Philippe ad, " You never actually own a Patek Philippe, you merely look after it for the next generation" ). It was so true of the old M cameras back in the film days. It serves a purpose and it performs at the top of the pack. People swore that the image Leica produce has that special Leica look. Same thing is said of the sound that a Steinway produces. Back in the days, the old Leicas hold their value, the camera performs, no one ever ask for the shutter actuation, and people really enjoy using them. Now a days, with the digital M, you lose half the value in 3 years, you worry about corrosion or electronic rot, shutter count dictates the price somewhat, and so on.
 
Given the ongoing popularity of classical music and the steady stream of young and bright musicians willing to sacrifice their life for a career as high level soloists, there will always be a market for crafted instruments, new and old. This is unlikely to stop. Most people nowadays do not stock their houses with grand pianos or even uprights.. they learn and have fun on electronic versions that "almost" recreate the right sound and even the right action...as of course they are digitally sampled from the real mccoy. You gotta cough up for the Steinway, Bosendoerfer, even Yamaha and Kawai.

But the similarity to digital leicas is not so strong with the digital pianos in my estimation although still possible improvements, which are really not improvements, but better emulations of the quirky characteristics of finely crafted analog instruments. Otherwise, everything sounds like Euro techno .

It does seem that Leica not necessarily creating a new look with it's digitals, but that is happening because the sensors are not analogs of film....with respect to image capture. It's a new day in that respect. Since the capture medium and the processing evolves quickly and even the paradigm of picture taking....these digital Leicas have pitifully short and expensive lifetimes compared to their ancestors. I am looking at an M9 for 2300 and 240 for 3500, and I still can't bring myself to pull the trigger. Alas, the M9 probably needs a new sensor and sending to Leica and begging for it to be replaced or to have it returned this decade...is daunting. Yes, and so on. It seems that one buys these things for current joy, which is fleeting to some degree. My grandson will likely not get his kicks from receiving a digital M. He could well cherish my M3 and M4P, and maybe even the CLE.
 
I remember paying close to $8K for my first M240. I sold that not long after I got it. I just felt guilty spending that much money on a camera. I paid close to $6K for the current M 240 that I have. I bought it as certified used, after a day, I discovered a line in the sensor, sent it back and Leica basically sent me a brand new one as a replacement. That was 2 1/2 years ago. I almost sold it a few months ago (before the M10 release) for $4000 because I wanted to get the SL 601. I backed out on the deal because I also know that I will miss the RF experience. Now that the M10 is out, I am trying to decide whether to sell the M 240 or just keep it and buy a M10-P when it is out in a few years. I like the look of the P model and wished that I waited for the MP-240 back then. I do like the M 240 better than the M9. I know, not a popular thing but I feel it is a better camera. I do miss the smaller body.
 
Very much appreciate your analysis and willingness to share experience. This is an expensive hobby or distraction from real work, but generally worth it. I am just relatively unhappy that I don't have the time to get out as much as I would like. Perhaps that will change....... the new Lomo minitar has some appeal to me. Wading through the non Leica options is overbearing....Fuji, Sony, Pansonic, Oly. I guess I'm complaining about "choice". This may sound Victorian, but maybe too many choices is sometimes not all that good.
 
Can't agree with you more regarding too many choices. I remember when the lifecycle of a M analog camera is over 10 years. So much easier to make a decision. Same thing with the Nikon F bodies. Now a days, too many choice coming at you constantly. Eventually, the market will not be able to take it anymore.
 
Can't agree with you more regarding too many choices. I remember when the lifecycle of a M analog camera is over 10 years. So much easier to make a decision. Same thing with the Nikon F bodies. Now a days, too many choice coming at you constantly. Eventually, the market will not be able to take it anymore.
I think its not as bad as you suggest. Lots of 10-year-old M8s still going strong. M9 is closing in on 8-years-old and with Leica replacing corroding sensors for free, it likely has a lot of years left in it. My M Monochrom remains an absolute delight (I should have it back from RF adjustment in the next week or two) and I highly doubt I will ever "upgrade" to a newer model.

The M10 really only offers one compelling upgrade for me, and that is a purely optical and mechanical one; the improved rangefinder. Even that (it is very nice) is a very tough decision and if I do upgrade, it won't be for some time. I'm perfectly happy with the M-D 262, and honestly was perfectly happy with the M-E and really just wanted a slightly quirkier workflow rather than any real improvement in image quality. The M-E was, in my opinion, slightly better at base ISO, while the M-D is better (much better) at ISO 1600 and of course the M-E couldn't even go to 3200 or 6400, where the M-D remains usable if you nail the exposure. M10 of course is better still at high ISO, but since I like night to look like night even the M-E with its 1250 usability ceiling rarely was a limiting factor in available darkness.
 
Hap, one way to look at an M9 is to figure it's for your next 3 years of full-frame rangefinder photography. It's highly likely to make it through that. That's a bit over $1K per year, worst case, which is about $3 to $4 per day. (Although sure, you won't shoot it every day.)

More likely is you can shoot it for longer and it's amortized even longer. If there's any residual value (highly likely), subtract that off at the end: your costs went down another $1K or so.

Still my advice: find a seller with a good rep, and go for it. You'll be tickled at shooting great glass. You'll collect some wonderful full-frame glass, that you'll love shooting with with a still superb ff sensor (forget aging specs, just enjoy the images).

The M9 has haptics and engineering choices which allow you to really bond with it. (Unlike some better spec'd up-to-date cameras. For me at least.)

The M9 is a bit older now, but it's still a beautifully made, beautifully functioning device for taking beautiful pictures. Go for it.
 
Andrew, you can wait until the M10 Monochrom. Just planting the bug early. You're welcome. :D

The M246 Monochrom didn't tempt me, and I don't think the M10 Monochrom will either. The regular M10 as a primary camera is very tempting as its live view and EVF make it a real DSLR replacement, though I'm enjoying the M_d 262 enough to not be in any rush.

My guess is that a year or two from now I'll be shooting a color M10 and still using my M9 Monochrom, or perhaps a silver chrome one with the updated cover glass.
 
Hap, one way to look at an M9 is to figure it's for your next 3 years of full-frame rangefinder photography. It's highly likely to make it through that. That's a bit over $1K per year, worst case, which is about $3 to $4 per day. (Although sure, you won't shoot it every day.)

More likely is you can shoot it for longer and it's amortized even longer. If there's any residual value (highly likely), subtract that off at the end: your costs went down another $1K or so.

Still my advice: find a seller with a good rep, and go for it. You'll be tickled at shooting great glass. You'll collect some wonderful full-frame glass, that you'll love shooting with with a still superb ff sensor (forget aging specs, just enjoy the images).

The M9 has haptics and engineering choices which allow you to really bond with it. (Unlike some better spec'd up-to-date cameras. For me at least.)

The M9 is a bit older now, but it's still a beautifully made, beautifully functioning device for taking beautiful pictures. Go for it.

The M9 looks promising. I have heard Leica will replace the ageing /failing sensor, but I don't know if that's completely true in practice or logistically appealing given horror stories about sending cams to Leica NJ for repairs/upgrades etc. I don't like spending $$ and then waiting forever while Nero fiddles (unless once in a lifetime deal). I like my gratification, as instantaneous as possible.

Would any of the digi M's under consideration not be compatible with my collapsible Elmar 50 2.8?
 
From what I read, there's a slight chance for a RF roller clearance issue, depending on individual samples of lens and camera. Don't mount or dismount collapsed, and be a bit careful. It will be fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drew, when I say that the lifecycle of the analog is 10 years or more, I am referring to the company selling the same model for 10+ years. I think with the M series, they lasted more than 10 years. Look at M3, from 1954 to 1966. Still see them around and working over 50 years later. Can't imagine seeing an M8 50 years later still working. Might not even be able to find a battery for them. I worked in the consumer electronic industry for many years with the last few years being in procurement. Just trying to find older components can be a challenge that is one reason why company are forced to produce new model sometimes. I know we did just because old chips are no longer available. Even if you want to buy 10 years worth of parts, you can't. Many of the Electronic Manufacturing services will not touch parts that are over certain number of years because they might not solder well to the board and the. Been there, done that :) close to $500K down the drain.
 
It is true Vince, and a shame. Leica does seem to be supporting the obsolete as graciously as possible though. Lucky for us engineers parts obsolescence often means a new design cycle, heh.

Sometimes a manufacturer goes off in a different direction than you were hoping for, leaving you with the older model. Luckily Leica got back onto a great track with the M10.
 
I seem conflicted.....don't know whether to buy a M9 or M240. Typically 1K difference in the used market. Also, need to consider among other things the shooting experience difference, video (don't really use), and live view (I would probably use at times). ISO performance gain in 240 is ++/-. I have fast 50'itis.
 
It's very much what you'll see through Olympus cameras using the EVF-2. I consider it quite good, although certainly it's been surpassed since it was one of the best EVFs you could get.

Certainly good enough to get the exposure, composition, and focus on-the-fly.
 
Hi Carl.....I have one for the Vario that I don't use....but was wondering if performance possibly different on the M240 since it is not a RF etc. I guess that means I could negotiate a better price on the 240 if seller wished, but these VF's are not really worth a lot.
 
Back
Top