Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Q / T / X Series

Leica Q / T / X Series For the Leica Q, T, X series digital cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

I don't get it . . .
Old 07-13-2015   #1
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
I don't get it . . .

The Leica Q.

I'm sure it makes beautiful images, but I don't understand why anyone would purchase one. With a fixed 28mm lens (albeit a great lens) that can't be changed, and costing $4250, it's only $546 less than the full frame Leica M-E, which can use practically every Leica M lens ever made.

I can see the Leica Q if it was priced in the $2000 - $3000 range, but $4250 for a fixed lens camera that doesn't allow you to change the focal length, I don't get it. I'm probably an outlier on this.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #2
seagrove
Registered User
 
seagrove is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 154
I am in total agreement with you, Timmyjoe. While I do not and have not owned Leicas in the past I feel the Q is definitely overpriced for the average person. But Leica develops and markets for a niche so they charge what they want and Leicaphiles will pay it for the sake of carrying a Leica (albeit they make some fine lenses).
__________________
Rich
http://www.richard-owen.com
http://meandmyx100s.blogspot.com
Yashica Electro35 GS, X-E1, XF 1,4/35mm, Nikkor 1,8/85mm AF-D & Fujifilm X100S
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #3
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,116
Quote:
I don't get it . . .
I could apply this definition to ALL Leica-Leitz equipment ever made in terms of pricing.
Q is in the same que.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #4
JP Owens
Registered User
 
JP Owens is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Age: 66
Posts: 322
Leica knows its target consumer for new Leicas. It isn't most of us. Leicas are not overpriced for its target consumer.
__________________
_______

"Nothing exists beyond the edges of the frame."
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #5
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,566
For some folks, it's the camera they've been waiting for. For others, it's a waste of money.

Who are we to decide that for anyone other than ourselves?

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #6
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
Question is just what depreciates faster - dollars one pays for new camera or camera one buys for depreciating dollars? Depending on answer people choose to either buy camera or keep dollars.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #7
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,602
Every new Leica product supports the fact that they own a small and very devoted niche of the marketplace.
That's neither good nor bad; it just is what it is.

So . . . you are not the "outlier" . . . the guys buying L-gear are the outliers.
Again . . . it's their money, none of my business what they do with it.
__________________
Dave


"Insults are pouring down on me as thick as hail." .... E. Manet
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #8
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,663
Well, while I am not interested in digital cameras, let's look at this equation from a point of view of somebody who would like to use one primarily with a 28mm lens.
I looked up B&H prices for 28mm lenses:
Summicron M - 3.780 USD
Summilux M - 5.950 USD

As some of you might shrewdly observe, the Summicron is F 2.0, while the Summilux is F 1.4, so a lens that would be half way= F1.7 should cost AT LEAST the average price of the two above, which works out as follows:
3.780+5.950=9.730
9.730/2= 4.865

So, not only Leica Q does not cost anything - they actually give you a 28/1.7 Summilux DISCOUNTED at least 20% plus, they give you a dedicated body FOR FREE !

So, how does this look now? - Better?
You see, your glass was half empty, but to other guys it is 2/3rds full...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #9
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
The Leica Q.

I'm sure it makes beautiful images, but I don't understand why anyone would purchase one. With a fixed 28mm lens (albeit a great lens) that can't be changed, and costing $4250, it's only $546 less than the full frame Leica M-E, which can use practically every Leica M lens ever made.

I can see the Leica Q if it was priced in the $2000 - $3000 range, but $4250 for a fixed lens camera that doesn't allow you to change the focal length, I don't get it. I'm probably an outlier on this.

Best,
-Tim
Tim, your calculation doesn't take into account the fact that, with the Q, you're getting a Leica lens as well as the body for that price. So a fairer comparison would be an M-E body plus equivalent M-mount 28mm lens. And the difference will be much larger than the $546 you are quoting.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #10
Darthfeeble
Accidental Photographer
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1,020
No dust spots!!!! Reasonable ISO!!! I favor the 28mm focal length on my M9 so this is a good deal for me. I can sell my M9 and the lenses for more than the cost of a Q, have a more modern and somewhat more compact camera and room in my bag for a p&J sammy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #11
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck with 28mm. It's not like down the line you can add lenses. With the M-E for an extra $546, you can start with a 28 Elmarit, brand new for $1980, and build from there. With the Leica Q, you're stuck with 28mm from here to when the camera eventually dies. Seems like an awful lot of money to spend on a camera that is locked in to only one focal length. That would not work for me.

But, as I want to see Leica stay in business, I hope it works for others.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #12
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,116
M-E has very limited sensor in it. So limited I would not consider it as something competitive to Q in IQ department.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #13
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
M-E has very limited sensor in it. So limited I would not consider it as something competitive to Q in IQ department.
We'll agree to totally disagree on that.

Or maybe put another way, I have never found the sensor on my old Leica M8.2 or my current Leica M-E to have limited me or been a detriment in image quality.
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #14
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck with 28mm.
Yes, you are stuck as long you absolutely want and need the highest pixel count for each shot. The 35mm crop however is perfectly usable in terms of technical quality (see Leica X, see Fuji X100), and even the 50mm crop may prove quite okay for many users in many cases. I think many serious users view it as a digital 28-35mm zoom or something similar.

I think this is mostly a price discussion, but I'll skip that for now.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Limited Sensor?
Old 07-13-2015   #15
Dektol Dan
Registered User
 
Dektol Dan is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 886
Limited Sensor?

I'll take a CCD over a CMOS anytime. Some folks can't see the difference between film and digital, some prefer more megapixels for the sake of higher ISO but sacrifice color richness and modeling in shaded areas (a just plain richer image).

There are others who see the complete digital competence of today's cell phones as fully sufficient.

I shoot for arty images, not just a record of where I have traveled.

I love the Q, but would prefer the ME.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #16
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
I'm sure it makes beautiful images, but I don't understand why anyone would purchase one.
- 99% of photographers on every Leica product ever.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #17
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck with 28mm.
I dont think the camera is for anyone who is concerned a lot about money.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #18
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
Well, while I am not interested in digital cameras, let's look at this equation from a point of view of somebody who would like to use one primarily with a 28mm lens.
I looked up B&H prices for 28mm lenses:
Summicron M - 3.780 USD
Summilux M - 5.950 USD

As some of you might shrewdly observe, the Summicron is F 2.0, while the Summilux is F 1.4, so a lens that would be half way= F1.7 should cost AT LEAST the average price of the two above, which works out as follows:
3.780+5.950=9.730
9.730/2= 4.865

So, not only Leica Q does not cost anything - they actually give you a 28/1.7 Summilux DISCOUNTED at least 20% plus, they give you a dedicated body FOR FREE !

So, how does this look now? - Better?
You see, your glass was half empty, but to other guys it is 2/3rds full...
I totally missed this one. The case is closed for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #19
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,850
Again, the point I'm trying to make is not about whether a CMOS or CCD sensor is better, it's not about whether if priced out separately a Leica FF digital body and Leica 28mm Summilux/Cron would cost more.

What baffles me is that someone would spend (what for me is a huge amount of money) $4250 on a camera with a fixed focal length lens that has no option of ever changing focal length.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #20
rscheffler
Registered User
 
rscheffler is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Again, the point I'm trying to make is not about whether a CMOS or CCD sensor is better, it's not about whether if priced out separately a Leica FF digital body and Leica 28mm Summilux/Cron would cost more.

What baffles me is that someone would spend (what for me is a huge amount of money) $4250 on a camera with a fixed focal length lens that has no option of ever changing focal length.

Best,
-Tim
That's fine and maybe no one can supply any answer to convince you otherwise.

Where the Q would interest me is as a quicker and smaller version of the M. I do a fair percentage of my M system work at 28mm, so the Q would fit in well with my way of seeing things. It could be as a second camera dedicated strictly to 28mm while I use the M with other lenses.

24MP is also decent enough resolution to allow a fair amount of cropping. Of course it will depend on your needs and where your work is used, but a lot of excellent images have been made over the last 10-15 years on much lower resolution cameras. Therefore I wouldn't consider it as a camera restricted to just 28mm. It could be used well in the 28-50mm equivalent angle of view range.

Anyway, the price is what it is. Someone at Leica made some calculations and decided it should be around $4000, which sits close to M pricing but maybe isn't too low to make people wonder why it's so 'cheap' or potentially drive people away from M. The question you raise definitely works in Leica's favour, relative to anyone wanting to buy into the brand and willing to spend the money. It's close enough to entry-level M that it could push some up to an ME and a lens, from which Leica will realize greater gain. And with this kind of product, price generally only ever goes down, so there is incentive for Leica to shoot a bit high and cash in with the early adopters (not to imply they are being suckered since they obviously see value in buying it now). Give it a year or so and you'll likely see a fair number of Q refurb bodies.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #21
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Again, the point I'm trying to make is not about whether a CMOS or CCD sensor is better, it's not about whether if priced out separately a Leica FF digital body and Leica 28mm Summilux/Cron would cost more.

What baffles me is that someone would spend (what for me is a huge amount of money) $4250 on a camera with a fixed focal length lens that has no option of ever changing focal length.

Best,
-Tim
Personally I like a fixed lens camera. I will take a leaf shutter and sealed system any day over an ILC.
I rarely change lenses in the field (like never).

If budget was no issue, and, Leica (or fuji for that matter) offered multiple focal lengths in fixed lens models I would purchase in that mode rather than buying ILC system cameras and lenses..... no looking back!
Carrying a Leica Q-28 and Leica Q-50mm in the same bag for events would be great! As would a Q-35mm and Q-90mm.
Again, I don't change lenses in the field. Why have an ability you don't use?
There are other technical and performance advantages to matching a lens and sensor as well. They are advantages that ILC systems rarely can match.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #22
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Again, the point I'm trying to make is not about whether a CMOS or CCD sensor is better, it's not about whether if priced out separately a Leica FF digital body and Leica 28mm Summilux/Cron would cost more.

What baffles me is that someone would spend (what for me is a huge amount of money) $4250 on a camera with a fixed focal length lens that has no option of ever changing focal length.

Best,
-Tim

For sort of photography that we see on this forum (ie not sports) I find that the 28fl is the most useful plus the camera gives you the option of a 35 crop.

I wouldn`t really need anything else.

The fact that it has af is for me an additional attraction.

+ what Andy says ...I usually carry two Merrills 45/75 and a GRv28.
No messing about changing lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #23
Drago
Registered User
 
Drago is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 147
I don't get it either, but we live in a free world. I don't get the point of a M-A too, for the price of body alone you can build a whole system, but hence somewhere, someone is buying them
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #24
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,429
I won't be buying this camera, but I do think your point isn't all that large. You can only put one lens on at a time, and if you only use a 35mm fov, there's no need to be able to put on a 50mm you'll never own. I think the design is a fair one. Having a camera that costs twice as much with the lens because I can put lenses I'll never use on it doesn't make much sense to me. I think Leica should have done this a long time ago, but it should have an optical finder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #25
mlu19
Registered User
 
mlu19 is online now
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 64
Sony Rx1 was retailed for close to $3k when it first came out. Leica can easily charge that much more just because.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #26
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchu View Post
I won't be buying this camera, but I do think your point isn't all that large. You can only put one lens on at a time, and if you only use a 35mm fov, there's no need to be able to put on a 50mm you'll never own. I think the design is a fair one. Having a camera that costs twice as much with the lens because I can put lenses I'll never use on it doesn't make much sense to me. I think Leica should have done this a long time ago, but it should have an optical finder.
I agree on the optical finder.
If Leica was to build a range of fixed lens RF cameras it could be all the rage!.
Imagine a fixed lens f1.4 40mm or f2 50mm with a leaf shutter and RF focus in front of a 24mp ff sensor...mmmm Delicious!
I would sell all my little arty film cameras and buy this Fixed lens gem.
Keep only the Fuji GF670 for Film B+W. All else in Digital with the new camera or 5D for wide and long lens work (work ..work)
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #27
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,429
I have three Konica C35 currently. And some portra 400. If this is the same stuff movie directors are putting in their cameras, I don't see them ever giving it up, the latitude is insane.

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #28
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,773
I ordered one... while rangefinder focusing is my favorite MF method, I prefer AF to MF. However, the main reason for me is ergonomics. I prefer the M type shaped body to anything with a grip. Additionally, I tend to only use one/two lenses per body anyway. The Q came at the right time for me. I wanted a Leica, I wanted FF, I like 28mm, and I want AF with MF as a secondary option.

What's funny for me is that many assume that if they don't like 28mm, nobody else does.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #29
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,602
My 2 favorite cameras of all time had (have?) fixed prime lenses.
I still own and love both of them (one film, one digital).
I have no problems with the design concept.
But I imagine the Q sitting on a table and $4000 in cash sitting next to it and someone says "Pick one of these and take it home". On the train ride home, I'd envy the guys who took the Q.
__________________
Dave


"Insults are pouring down on me as thick as hail." .... E. Manet
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-13-2015   #30
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,522
Well Dave you pretty much just said it. I would envy guys also. Until two years later when I bought their cameras for $1500 (fingers crossed).
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,773
So what it comes down to again, as with any Leica, is that the main gripe is the price tag?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #32
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
So what it comes down to again, as with any Leica, is that the main gripe is the price tag?

John, speaking for me only, and being picky about words, I'm not "griping" about Leica gear or their pricing. I am just explaining why I'd leave the Q on the table and take the $4000 cash.
However .... if that were only, say $1500 cash, I'd probably grab the camera and run.
It does really, as you say, come down again to the price tag and what the cash is worth to you versus what the camera is worth to you.
__________________
Dave


"Insults are pouring down on me as thick as hail." .... E. Manet
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #33
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,773
I understand Dave. I get it... believe me, I keep wondering if I'm being foolish spending the cash, but oh well... I like it enough to do it and it'll be useful to me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #34
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,424
Well the Q has an anti-aliasing filter.

Quite some time ago the lack of an AA was considered a fundamental advantage by M8 owners. And back then sensor assemblies without AA filters were (almost) unprecedented.

What has changed? How come the Q's AA filter is just fine now? Was omitting the AA filter ever an advantage?.

To be complete, the higher pixel density and reduced pixel pitch common in newer sensor beds increase the effective sampling frequency which decreases aliasing artifacts. Still, the M240 has no AA filter and the same pixel density as the Q. I have no idea how the pixel pitch compares.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #35
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Well the Q has an anti-aliasing filter.
This is not what all the reviews suggest. It is anyway weak enough to induce moire.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #36
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I understand Dave. I get it... believe me, I keep wondering if I'm being foolish spending the cash, but oh well... I like it enough to do it and it'll be useful to me.
John,

Your above situation was the same for me when I purchased my Monochrom: a contriversal camera that some people on this forum called "stupid;" it was priced at $8K and was considered expensive; many argued that a M9 was more practical; there was a long wait (5 months in my case, but that was o.k. because I didn't have the cash); there were many who could not understand why the Monochrom was a great camera for some; the Monochrom was not a camera for the masses; there was a lot of bashing/hating...

In the end the purchase of my Monochrom ended up being some of the best money I ever spent, the camera made me very happy and still does. For me it was and is my dream camera, warts and all.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #37
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,773
I get that Cal and Helen... I do think it is a lot for what it is, but then again, there's no such thing as a cheap Leica digital. I guess it appeals to me in an emotional sense as well... which is what ultimately needs to end up happening when you buy Leica stuff. I'm going to go back to the Leica Store on W Broadway and check it out again to make sure.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #38
Ariefb
Registered User
 
Ariefb's Avatar
 
Ariefb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 77
I don't see fixed lens as a disadvantage. Pricing-wise, 4k for a 28mm 1.7, FF sensor, and well-designed body, that's a steal.
__________________
Make Film, Not War.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #39
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I get that Cal and Helen... I do think it is a lot for what it is, but then again, there's no such thing as a cheap Leica digital. I guess it appeals to me in an emotional sense as well... which is what ultimately needs to end up happening when you buy Leica stuff. I'm going to go back to the Leica Store on W Broadway and check it out again to make sure.
John,

It is a lot of money, but in many ways the Monochrom was and is a dream camera that almost seems like Leica made especially for me. Here we are 2 1/2 years later and now there is a M-246 to replace my Monochrom, but I'm still happy with my camera.

The way I see the new M-246 is that it offers better high ISO, better shadow detail, and better highlights than my CCD'ed Monochrom, but the way I shoot my MM9 I can get the midrange that is very medium format like, and I love the rendering. Understand that I seldom push ISO above 800 so the benefit of the M-246 high ISO performance is moot to me. I can only see getting a M-246 as an addition and not as a replacement for my Monochrom. I'm hoping that the "Q" is a similar love affair, meaning long-term, for you.

While I find it very interesting the level of passion displayed by others, either for or against, this polorizing of opposing sides has happened before. The parallels and contriversey are rather profound.

Anyways my spin is one way to make art is to do exactly the opposite of what everyone else is doing. The "Q" kinda presents a lot of style and definately is not for everyone, and for me this is what makes it an interesting camera for me. You know how I love the 28mm FOV.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #40
Brooklynguy
Registered User
 
Brooklynguy is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck...Seems like an awful lot of money to spend on a camera that is locked in to only one focal length. That would not work for me.
One could also say that for $3,800 (price of a 28 Summicron), you similarly "are stuck" with only one focal length (no zoom, no variety, no nuthin'!), and no camera to boot! Or for $7,000, you only get that boring 50mm FOV and only f/2--ugh! who wants that tripe when CaNikon's Nifty 50 is $100! In fact, this could be argued for ANY lens and any price, since cheap point and shoot cameras can be had for almost nothing, relatively speaking.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:28.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.