
The Leica Q: A six month field test - Tomte
http://craigmod.com/sputnik/leica_q/
======
brotherjerky
I love how thorough and thoughtful this article is, especially since it's on a
personal web site. Reminds me of what the web used to be, before big clickbait
sites took over. Just someone writing at length about something they are
passionate about.

------
KaiserPro
I could understand the point of leica, in the 40s-60s

it was quiet, well built, had good lenses and was reliable. (it had a fabric
shutter, or something similar, which means it didn't click. This allowed
people to be "in the moment")

In the digital world, I just don't understand the point of them. Sure yes its
a full frame with a decent lens in a similar body size as the old compact
rangefinders.

But.

the image quality just isn't worth the $4K. Thats top end SLR price. Under its
all its just a panasonic lumix. If it was a separate entity, I could sorta see
the point. You are paying for the name, and thats it.

What I'd really like is a leica/fujion style body, but with a nikon sensor and
lens adaptor. (Although I suspect that its not really possible because the
focal point is much too deep.)

~~~
FireBeyond
I'm someone who thinks Leica is a bit overpriced.

But as the owner of a 5D Mk III and several L lenses, -and- a Lumix DMC-
LX100... the Leica is not a Lumix.

This isn't even the best article for image quality (though there are certainly
many very good shots). But where the Leica excels is razor sharp images that
don't have any hint of "is that sharpened in Photoshop?" (for example:
[http://i1.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-
content/uploads/2...](http://i1.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/L1000366.jpg) )

~~~
foldr
It looks pretty ordinary to me, to be honest. Even entry level DSLRs produce
very sharp images these days.

------
keltex
The alternative camera (and one for 1/4 the price) is the Fuji X100T. Many
people love this camera:

[http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100t.htm](http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100t.htm)

~~~
martijn_himself
I posted exactly this comment and then I noticed yours. Are these camera's
actually comparable or is it apples and oranges?

~~~
alistairSH
Yes and no.

They are comparable, in that they are both fairly compact, fixed prime lens
cameras that offer high quality (camera build and image).

They are not comparable,as the Leica has a better/faster autofocus system. In
theory it has better optics as well, though I haven't seen a side-by-side.

A good friend is a professional photographer. His carry-around fun camera is
the X100T. I think his professional-grade stuff is Nikon. I'm sure he'd love
the Leica, but it's a lot of money for what is unlikely to be used
professionally (at least not by him).

------
mjhoy
Craig Mod's reviews convinced me to get the GF1 many years ago, and I am still
very happy with that camera. Though it has interchangeable lenses I often use
it with a prime 20mm (film equivalent of 40mm) which, I discovered, are simply
a joy to use: the lack of the "feature" of a zoom can free your mind in the
moment of exploration.

~~~
miseg
I should have replied to your comment, instead of posting a new one. I agree
with your sense of freeing, but if, as the author talks about, you'll crop
many of your shots, it doesn't sound so freeing then.

~~~
mjhoy
I was also surprised about the cropping! For my own photographs I never crop,
I don't really see the point. But perhaps he is publishing photos, in which
case I understand it.

------
Tomte
Under the heading "Video": "I think the Q does video."

That's it. I love his writing style.

------
dsmithatx
Glad I googled the camera and found out it cost +$4000 before reading are
review about it. It should have been the first sentence of the article since
most of us will never dream of spending that on a camera.

~~~
petercooper
You'll want to file "Leica" away in that area of your brain where brands like
"Ferrari" or "Rolex" are. It's basically the equivalent in cameras.

~~~
brudgers
A camera produces artifacts. To _me_ that makes it a bit different than a car
or a watch: Roli tell the same time, Ferrari's pick up the same cartons of
milk, but lenses and sensors and firmware capture different images.

I see Leica as of a kind with other multi thousand dollar cameras...it's not
as if a Nikon or a Cannon is any more or less reasonable.

------
VeejayRampay
I never quite understood Leica. The quality of their products is undoubtedly
extremely high, I won't try to deny that and they deserve credit for decades
of excellence in the field.

But as the owner of a Voigtländer R4A coupled with a Nokton 35mm f/1.4 (bought
for a total of $1200, which was quite the investment for me) I can't help but
be amazed by how much it would have cost me to buy the Leica equivalent (5
times that amount). It's quite obvious looking at the results that Leica does
not offer that superior a result for that hefty price (and even though I know
that it's a tad simplistic to reason in those terms, it certainly wouldn't
have bought me 5 times the quality).

Leica reminds me of Apple, it's all about status and perceived value. Hats off
to them for reaching that lucrative niche market.

~~~
pepve
> it's all about status and perceived value

Yet the author of this post taped off the lettering to make it look like a
generic camera.

~~~
greggman
Here in Asia Leica is sold in high end fashion malls, not in the photography
equipment or electronics area of town. In fact in Japan there's a Leica
counter in the men's fashion accessories area of Mitsukoshi Mens in Ginza. In
Hong Kong there's one in Harbour City, a high end fashion mall. In Singapore
there's one in ION Orchard, another fashion mall. Where as if you want any
other brand of camera in all those cities you go to the electronics area of
town. Akihabara or Shinjuku's Yodobashi Camera in Japan, Mong Kok in HK, Sim
Lim or Funan Digitallife Mall in SG

In other words, Leica themselves are positioning their cameras as fashion
accessories. Something to show you have $$$$$$

~~~
rogeryu
If I were Leica and I could sell my camera as accessory in a fashion mall, why
not? This tells me more about the people shopping there, than about Leica.
It's probably not Leica positioning themselves there, but some smart business
people seeing good margins.

------
miseg
I'd struggle with the idea of shooting at such a wide angle, and relying on
cropping later. Theoretically, at least, I like the idea of letting a fixed
focal length in the camera guide how I frame images around me.

~~~
ska
28mm isn't really so wide on a full frame. In some ways it is more natural
than 50mm, in that it frames more like we see with two eyes side by side (50
is closer to the projection we see though) without much in the way of
distortion. Once you get used to the frame, you would't need to crop all the
time, but I guess it saves you some foot zooming.

~~~
alistairSH
WRT to foot zooming, shooting portraits with a 28mm requires some SERIOUS foot
zooming. You have to be VERY comfortable getting close to subjects. Fine if
you know them; possibly awkward if you don't.

~~~
miseg
Interesting. Do you tend to crop portraits you take at 28mm?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
You shouldn't take portraits with a 28mm lens, at least not if you can avoid
it. It'll distort your subject's features, making their chin, or nose, or
whatever look abnormally large. Better to use an 85mm lens if you can.

~~~
foldr
It will distort their features if you get in close. For the same distance from
the subject, any focal length with give you the same amount of (perspective)
distortion. So if you shoot from 10ft away and crop, you'll get the same
results (modulo resolution) as you would have gotten if you'd shot from 10ft
away with a longer focal length and filled the frame.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
10 foot subject distance on a 28mm lens isn't much of a portrait. Unless
you're doing an environmental portrait with an emphasis on the environment.

~~~
foldr
Well, that's why I said "shoot from 10ft away and crop".

~~~
aaronbrethorst
How much resolution does your sensor offer?

------
nandreev
For anyone looking for the 80/20 alternative here (80% of the
experience/results for 20% of the cost), take a look at the Ricoh GR.

It doesn't have a viewfinder, but the ergonomics are superb. APS-C sensor,
fixed 28mm lens (a very sharp one at that), and 16mp. Goes with me on every
trip.

Ming Thein's review: [http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/06/review-2013-ricoh-
gr-di...](http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/06/review-2013-ricoh-gr-
digital-v/)

------
njharman
Um, is the price really $4,000!? Am I the only one that thinks nothing costing
that much is a "travel camera"? The one of several cameras I own that I toss
in my bag when I don't want or need capabilities of my "expensive" gear.

I wouldn't carry something costing $4000 on me anywhere I wasn't very familiar
with / felt safe in.

------
rffn
I wonder how this camera compares to a Sony A7 (or it's successors) if the
Sony is paired with a comparable lens.

I recall having heard that either the first or the second generation A7 has
the same sensor as the Leica Q but this might be wrong.

------
jmount
Images look like they lost contrast due to some sort of flare effect.

------
dgdsgdsg
Nice advertisement...

------
jordache
blah... Full Frame is overrated.

For reasons one may want full frame, someone else may want a cropped sensor
for other equally legitimate reasons.

I love my Fuji X100. Manual Focus is also overrated. As long as you have a
quick phase detecting AF solution, you won't miss the tactile mechnical MF.
The X100 is not there yet, but future generations will surely provide
satisfactory AF speed.

~~~
jordache
oh yeah.. all the people who think bokeh downvoted.

Do you know the concept of non-shallow DOF and how that is beneficial in many
low light/wide-open aperture circumstances?

------
CyberDildonics
Maybe there should be a separate site called Hacker Ads

------
mtrycz
The article contains referral links for amazon at the bottom.

Just saying.

~~~
alistairSH
So? Bloggers deserve to eat too.

