Leica Q, mind-blowing for stills

[Andrew Reid]

Occasionally I like to pretend video doesn't exist on EOSHD and I'm preparing a review of the Leica Q!

I really liked Mattias Burling's review

 

And this guy's, with some stunning shots in both...

I bought mine used for £3000. The prices new have gone up due to lack of stock.

But if you think of it as a £1500 lens and a £1500 body, in Leica terms that's cheap and with this you get very fast AF unlike on the 28mm F1.4 M

It is quite simply the best small full frame camera I've ever used

And what I find very interesting technologically about it is how much of a Panasonic trace there is in the camera, a clear collaboration and I think we'll be seeing more from Panasonic in the full frame market in due course (just a personal opinion).

I had the Sony RX1R II but I prefer the Q, which is saying a lot because the RX1R II is an amazing camera and has better specs on paper. The look of the 28mm F1.7 is drool-worthy wide open on the full frame Panasonic... I mean Leica... sensor.

The 24MP sensor in the Q has amazing colour, the lens is crazy sharp... You have a 35mm and 50mm crop mode, which works in video mode too.

I really wish it had 4K, 3K and 2K high quality video, as the cropping ability from the full frame sensor at 28mm gives you practically a 28-50mm F1.7 OIS zoom.

Firmware update please Leica!

[Mattias Burling]

Lovely camera and thanks for sharing my video
Sadly I couldn't keep it long enough^(investing in some telephoto lenses) which is why the images in my video aren't exactly to my full potential.
Therefor I'm looking forward to your review instead

Here are two shots if anyone wants to pixel peep.

[Cinegain]

Leica is always good for premo schtuff... both quality... and pricetag.

Needless to say... I won't be getting one anytime soon.

Did buy my Voigtländer 17.5mm from a guy who switched to the Leica Q as well, so, I guess there's still a sunny side to it for those whose collection won't have a Leica camera init for the while.

Of course I'm a wannabe, so I'll still chase the dream... Huawei P10 Plus has the Leica collab going on, got that MFT Leica 15mm f/1.7 and now the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 that came with the GH5. Two Summicron-R E55 f/2 primes in 35 & 50mm flavors to adapt. But then again, neither of these are even close to £1500 a pop and offer me a bit more versatility. For the lifestyle stills shooters, the Q however is definitely about as good as it gets. There's something about Leica snaps... those cameras capture the emotion of the moment, as if it feels... and intensifies it... connects you to it, where most other cameras can only see and observe, kinda lacking that kind of immersion. I also like the idea of having the very basics covered in one of the most purist forms. That's something that I really appreciate about shooting with the LX100 (oh, another thing with a hint of 'Leica'). Don't have to think about what to bring with you, you just bring your camera and that's it. Would've even been better with a single focal lenght perhaps, that would've simplified it even more. That's why I'm really hoping Ricoh would make a GRIII and hopefully one with a tilting touchscreen and weatherproofing (dustproof!). That's about as close as analog shooting with a digital camera you're going to get perhaps. Surely Fujifilm is doing great things too. And at more of an price for anyone to enjoy it.

[AaronChicago]

Looks outstanding. I really wanted the Q but couldn't justify the price, as I don't take stills professionally. I ended up getting the Fuji X100f which is a nice runner up.

[Mattias Burling]

6 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Looks outstanding. I really wanted the Q but couldn't justify the price, as I don't take stills professionally. I ended up getting the Fuji X100f which is a nice runner up.

It is also a great camera I will probably get one again in a year or so when they are cheaper. The EVF/OVF is excellent, better than on the X-Pro2.

My Q cost a few dollars less than two used x100f. So there definitely is some money to be saved as well.

[Andrew Reid]

It's amazing how many bargains you are able to find.

The rendering of that picture of the dog by the way is a very good example of what's special about the Q. You press the shutter and it makes art almost every time. There is something about this lens... The incredible sharpness, but creamy bokeh and wide angle at F1.7 is hard to replicate on anything else I have. Zeiss 28mm F2.0 probably closest but that is manual focus. The Q is a shot getter AND an artistic tool. Very rare. None of my other full frame cameras are as fast in live-view / EVF, only through an optical viewfinder. The autofocus is very impressive on the Q through the 60fps live-view system.

[Mattias Burling]

Thats because I spend way to much time scouting classifieds, etc. Usually every time Im on the John

The lens has the Leica look. Here is an excellent video explaining for those that never used a Leica lens.

And I love that after recommending it in my videos. One of the biggest Leica bashers online that came there to troll also started promoting people to see it.

 

[Nikkor]

14 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

My Q cost a few dollars less than two used x100f. So there definitely is some money to be saved as well.

Mattias, confess! Your wife/gf (the one in the sofa) reads the forum too. Those bargains you mention are just a lie to make her not freak out.

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, Nikkor said:

Mattias, confess! Your wife/gf (the one in the sofa) reads the forum too. Those bargains you mention are just a lie to make her not freak out.

There is a cheaper Q on a classified in Sweden as we speak. Go get it

I bought mine from Scandinavian Photo, biggest chain we have. So its not like it was hard to find

[Andrew Reid]

Quite interesting to look at the unprocessed DNG raw image from this camera...

The JPEGs are 6000x4000 from a 24MP sensor.

The raws are actually 6015x4015 and the lens seems a bit wider than 28mm.

Here it is in Affinity Photo without the in-camera distortion correction -

Here is my same shot graded in Adobe Camera Raw which has the distortion correction map applied by default -

This is a big departure for Leica who have been vehemently against digital correction of their optics.

Another clear sign of Panasonic's influence in the Q.

When the digital correction works this well, I don't give a crap what the optics are doing!

[maxotics]

This is what I think about in photography.  Who am I?  Who are you?  Who are we?  I get into photographic ruts (like recently) and start shopping for digital Leicas, like the M9.  Mattias's videos really had me close to buying one of them then  I already have my Dad's M4-P (not Leica's finest) but I don't use it.  I can't see using a Leica Q much because I'm not rich enough, or rich at all.  If I drop or lose my Ricoh GR I wouldn't feel guilty about what I've done to my family.  Not so the Leica Q, which I wager is part of the reason Mattias isn't holding onto his.  

Leica is not about better quality.  It saddens me when people fall for that, especially people like me who go through cameras like french fries.  A leica would not take a better quality photo than the one attached (which I took while writing this).  A JPG right out of the camera.  

Leica's are there to boost up our confidence.  To make us feel part of some special club; to make us feel part of a long line of great photographers!  There's nothing wrong with that.  If I was going to do a video about a Leica camera I'd be honest about that.  This is the camera that gives me the confidence to take good photographs. This is a camera that freshened my interest in photography. To argue it as a technical benefit?  Would be an artistic delusion.  

Photographers who never shoot family and friends (or people professionally), or even themselves, are afraid of the emotionalism that really makes for meaningful photography.  Even Thorsten understands that; which is why he shows that portrait in the above video (not a picture of his dog).   

Shoot some portraits, shoot the people who make up your emotional world.  Of course, I know the reason why many people don't.  I know it all to well.  It's often painful.  Still....

[Andrew Reid]

10 minutes ago, maxotics said:

Leica is not about better quality.  It saddens me when people fall for that, especially people like me who go through cameras like french fries.  A leica would not take a better quality photo than the one attached, which is JPG right out of the GR.  Of course, I always shoot RAW except for purposes like this.

Dude, why are you taking webcam style photos of yourself, posting them on the forum and claiming that a Leica doesn't give you better quality photos.

Am I missing something?

Are you a troll planted by a rival blog to make the forum virtually unreadably off-topic?

Quote

Leica's are there to boost up our confidence.  To make us feel part of some special club; to make us feel part of a long line of great photographers!  There's nothing wrong with that.  If I was going to do a video about a Leica camera I'd be honest about that.  This is the camera that gives me the confidence to take good photographs.  To argue it as a technical benefit?  Would be an artistic delusion.

There is no artistic delusion to shooting with Leica lenses.

The Noctilux is the most artistic and creative lens I own!

Quote

Photographers who never shoot family and friends (or people professionally), or even themselves, are afraid of the emotionalism that really makes for meaningful photography.  Even Thorsten understands that; which is why he shows that portrait in the above video (not a picture of a random dog).   

Shoot some portraits, shoot the people who make up your emotional world. 

Please don't post any more self portraits.

If you have a dog, shoot that instead.

[maxotics]

4 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Please don't post any more self portraits.

That proves my point.  Some people can't handle the emotional truth of photography.  What are you scared of?  If I was a 19-year-old female (male?) model would you say the same thing?  What about that photograph gives you that reaction?

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Are you a troll planted by a rival blog to make the forum virtually unreadably off-topic?

Good one!  But no.

[BTM_Pix]

I made the mistake of telling my other half how much a Leica Q was when we saw an unpriced one in a cabinet while I was buying an ND filter in a store a few months ago.

So what I'm personally scared about with regard to the emotional truth of photography if I ever rang up to order one would be this.

[maxotics]

9 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

There is no artistic delusion to shooting with Leica lenses.

The artistic delusion is believing more expensive, or Leica-branded gear will provide better quality in all situations.  Of course I'm not arguing they're bad lenses!  AND, I'm not saying I'm above the same desires.  In fact, I have them too, which is why I LOVE Mattias' videos.  And I have already watched Thorsten's.  Fortunately, he's too much of an art snob for me to relate, unlike Mattias.

[Andrew Reid]

20 minutes ago, maxotics said:

What about that photograph gives you that reaction?

Nothing to do with the "emotional truth" that's for sure.

More that it has nothing to do with the topic.

Also that it demonstrates nothing, either artistically or technically.

And that it isn't even aesthetically pleasing.

Well done anyway!

[BTM_Pix]

15 minutes ago, maxotics said:

T And I have already watched Thorsten's.  Fortunately, he's too much of an art snob for me to relate.

I find him being a scientologist to be more of a barrier to be honest.

[Andrew Reid]

Haha is he?

I've always found him a bit odd... that would explain why.

[BTM_Pix]

14 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's amazing how many bargains you are able to find.

Seriously think @Mattias Burling should set up a commission based brokering service.

Although as he only browses whilst in the lav we'd have to have a whip round for a comfier seat as he'd be in there constantly at the sort of prices he can get stuff for !

[maxotics]

1 minute ago, Andrew Reid said:

More that it has nothing to do with the topic.

Also that it demonstrates nothing, either artistically or technically.

And that it isn't even aesthetically pleasing.

Well done anyway!

Sorry, looks like I didn't explain very well.  I posted the photo to show why I don't feel I need a Leica to get the image quality shots I need.  I wasn't trying to ruin your dinner, again, apologies.  The GR does 2.8, which is shallow enough for me and which I set the camera to.  I was just making the point that I believe I can get Leica image-quality shots with the GR at a fraction of the price (and a smaller, lighter camera too).  It is a disturbing shot.  Do you think I REALLY see myself that way?  I consider myself a fun guy.  And there's nothing my family doesn't find funnier than the fact that I think I'm funny   And I'm not trying to discredit anything you or Mattias are saying.  Again, just my thoughts on the subject, which I do think about a lot.