Pre-Order options for the new Leica Q.

36 Comments

1. Steve,
   So you rec the Leica Q over the A7rii with Batis 25? I am seriously tempted by the Leica as my only camera as I am currently using a7r with Fe28 very happily. Will the Batis have same “pop” to colors as Leica?

   • The sensor in the Leica is much different than the normal Leica sensor, and Sony sensor. It has a slide film like appearance and the Sony has a more natural sensor, as in not so much contrast and deep colors, though that could be done in post. If all you will ever use is one lens, 25 or 28, then Id take the Q for smaller size and that sensor. THOUGH, me, I would take the A7RII as it will be more versatile and I like different lenses form time to time. BUT the Leica is beautiful and simple and if you know you would only want one lens, 28mm, then it is a fantastic option.

     • Thanks Steve !! something to think about. Meanwhile I have used your links to preorder!!

2. I am trying to find a reason to justfy the Leica Q price at $4250 versus less than half price of the Sony A7II , Steve can you please expand on this I am buying a FF camera rifgt now and need some advice , thanks

   • You either like Leica ergonomics and simplicity or you don’t. Leica and Sony have different philosophies regarding this. Both are making some great cameras… However, one feels more like a camera and the other feels more like a computer. I use both.

3. A $4000 camera is not more outrageous than a $1000 mobile phone. It is even a deal, compared to a digial M plus lens. Digital Leica and Apple share the built-in obsolence, but no one seems to bother. Likely in five years from now, Leica will run out of spares. Or the suppliers of parts will no longer exist. Anyway, the then available successor model will make today’s Q totally undesireable.

   Cropped to 35mm, even to 50, there are still plenty of pixels left. More important, the EVP can show the entire 28mm content, but with framelines for 35mm or 50mm, like a classic M.

4. Hi Steve. DP review found that the lens of this camera suffers from heavy distortion which is fixed in camera and there’s no way to disable it even for RAW files. This would be similar to the Sony 28mm which is a great fast lens with a very noticeable distortion. And since the Sony 28mm can also shoot “macro”, it will be interesting to compare the two. I believe the Leica has better Bokeh.

   • The Sony RX1 is the same exact way, but has even more distortion if you do not fix it in RAW or let the camera fix the JPEG. Most cameras today do correction in camera. With that said, I see no distortion in my Q images, and none of my Q images in my review, NONE of them were corrected. Where is the distortion? Not visible in real world images for me.

     • The Leica Q correct the RAW file for distortion in camera, so there’s no way to see the real optical performance of the lens in this regard. DP review came to this conclusion by analyzing the RAW files from this camera. There are certain artifacts that suggests the RAW files are being corrected, including signs of corner stretching. There’s no way to disable that correction in camera.

     • Steve. I have been researching this the last few days. The Leica lens has very large distortion that is corrected in camera before it is written to raw. People are using RAWtherapee to look at the files before the software corrections are made. As well, I have been reading that the RX1 has minimal corrections in comparison.
       The final product is of course a very nice picture, but the altering of pixels makes the corners a bit soft. This camera looks great for street, but not the best for landscape, or architecture. One is not really getting a good Leica lens here, but some fantastic software algorithms, in a very nice package.

       • The RX1 has huge corrections. Ever see an RX1 shot without the corrections? If not, shoot some straight lines with an RX1 and shoot RAW. Take a look. It has to have massive corrections due to the lens being so far inside the camera and almost touching the sensor.

         • Before corrections, the RX1 has .7% distortion, which is excellent for a 35mm lens. After correction, it is .1%
           I have not seen anybody calculate the distortion on the Q yet, but looking at the uncorrected pictures it is many multiples worse than the RX1. On top of that it seems the lens is wider than 28mm, so that they can stretch the corners to eliminate the barrel distortion. So wide that even the corners are blacked out by what might be the hood.

5. Steve – remember the Nikon Coolpix A? We can buy 10 of them for one Q! For those who want a Q for taking pictures but can not afford it – buy a Coolpix A – around $400 – but be fast – these are the last ones.

6. I hope there will be one without the ‘Red Dot!’

   • You can for an extra $1,000 next year!

     It’s a ridiculous sales pitch, but I lust after all their cameras.

7. What actually happen to the size and quality of the picture if you use the digital crop? E.g., 35 and 50mm mode.

   • You still have 15 megapixels with the 35mm crop, and 8 Mpixels with the 50mm.

8. It is only a matter of taste and choices. If I had the money, no doubt I would go for the a7RII..with the loxia…

9. Never been very interested in Leica before but this one just looks so simple and clean that it appeals. It is only the price which holds me back and that I will be putting money into A7rii.

10. The Q is outrageously priced for a fixed lens camera; typical of Leica. The full frame makes little sense here, it just makes the lens bigger, the camera would look and feel better with a smaller optic. An APS-H sensor, like the M8’s, would have been fine.
    The choice of a 28mm is also stupid, this is not a focal length to put on a fixed lens camera (especially at that price), a 35mm or even a 50mm would make more sense, especially with Leica’s reputation for “classic” photography. I would choose a 42 to 45mm lens instead (remember the CL?).
    Reaching 50,000 ISO is also absurd. 6400 would have sufficed as the lens is an 1,7 extra bright optic (and the Q has image stabilisation too!). The EVF is a great idea, although I am not crazy about its shape. The LCD looks very good and the touch screen is a good idea too. The indentation for your thumb rest is not a bad idea, but there are better ones. The arrow pad below is far too small, child finger size.
    The shutter speed stopping at 1/2000 is strange, useless if you need to set f1,7 for a better bokeh under strong light. There is no ND filter in camera, as far as I know.
    I love the idea of a MACRO switch that alters the meter scale, that would have been superb if the lens was a normal one. This is not a “pocket” camera, anyway, the lens is too fat. So, the Q is in no man’s land really, not a rangefinder M size, nor a true compact. For $1800 I would consider it and if it had an M mount to change lenses I would probably consider twice as much.

    • Wrong on so many levels. Leica did what you said here a few times, failing each time. Leica shooters have been begging for a full frame like this for years, so they finally delivered. 28 is a great choice, and there is a reason Nikon, Ricoh, and others use this FL for their fixed lens cameras. It’s perfect for street, for everyday shooting. I love 35 but many times I wis it were a little wider and the 28 gives us that. A 50 would not have sold as well as it is more limiting for a one lens only camera. The higher the ISO the better, as many of us shoot at night, or in dark areas. ISO 6400 would not cut it. I shoot my A7s at ISO 80k often in night clubs, amazing. They have a huge wait list at this time for the Q…so it seems to be doing fine.

      • Steve, I’m so eager to know because you’re the only one who can answer. Which has better image quality in your opinion, the Leica Q, or the Sony rx7r ii with the 35mm 1.4? A comparison would be great. Keep up the great work, cheers from Sydney, Greg

        • When I get an A7RII to review I will let you know 😉

          • Thanks, Steve. Looking forward to it.

      • I don’t disagree with you, Steve. I am a rangefinder user (M8 and M9) and I also keep a Ricoh GR in my back pocket. Somehow Leica is all about interchangeable lenses, this has been the philosophy for the last 60 years, so pricing a fixed lens FF camera at $4250 is asking too much – why not a Sony instead? Leica needs some more work to do on design to interest us old-timers, I think.
        Regards.

        • symeonpi- Leica´s lens interchangeabilty was used by many photographs to pick up their fav focal lenght and stick with it. No serious street fotog or whatever you call it, have time to toy with changing lenses.
          I wonder by the way why Leica picked a code name Hemingway for Q. More appropriate would be Winograd who preferred 28mm, Bruce Gilden and Daido Moriyama were other names that comes to my mind considering 28mm users. And I´m sure that, should Leica came up with similar solution fixed with 50mm, HCB would approve it even so more.

11. The appeal of the Q is it’s hi IQ, small form factor. The A7R 2 with the lenses is much larger. The Q is designed to be your “other” camera when you want a pocketable camera to take on the go. They will both be very good cameras for much different reasons.

    • Look at the specs. The Q is only pocketable in oversized coat pockets and it weights 640 gram (RX1 is 480 gram), about the same as a A7r with the 28 f2 mounted.

      • ….and the RX1 isn’t even pocketable.

        • It is without the EVF. I carry it in a jacket pocket once in a while.

12. Both great – tho the Q would be my choice (more suits my needs).

    Can’t afford either mind you.

13. Seems like an awful lot of money for a very basic fixed lens camera.

    Why would I buy this over the new A7RII with Zeiss Batis 25/2?

    • Very good question.

    • The Q will be smaller and lighter than the A7R II with the Batis 25/2, the bokeh on the Q will be a marginally better being 28mm at f/1.7 vs. 25mm at f/2, the battery life in the Sony A7 series is awful, and this is purely subjective but the color on the Q looks to be superior to any A7 camera, including the A7 II which has very good, but not great color. *IF* the A7R II compresses the files like the previous A7 cameras then we are losing a lot of information and the camera may still be prone to color banding and less smooth highlight clipping. Also note that Q in tests actually resolves more detail than the original A7R despite its higher pixel count, so it is no slouch.

      Other than that, yes, you will be getting a hell of a good camera out of the A7R II from what we know.

      • The A7r II gives you uncompressed RAW files at 14 bit, as specified on sony’s website. and as the lens of the Leica Q has some Heavy distortion, I believe the Zeiss Batis will be much better Lens than that of the Leica Q

    • Not to mention over a full frame film fixed lens rangefinder for $35.

Comments are closed.