DigitalPatriot: Not sure why the EOS M or even M3 is not included as a good example of good combination of shooting experience and image quality. Even according to DP review's own lab tool at comp sizes, the M3 blows the X100t out of the water in sharpness. Its own 35mm f2 lens is sharp wide open out to the corners. very... sharp. Don't get me wrong I like the x100t. I'm reading this review but I want one and may buy one. But I think the M3 should be up there with competitors. It's probably not as snappy as a focuser as most, but it gets the job done just fine. I use it a lot for street photos. Both the original M and the M3.
I have the OG X100, and I think the lens performance is overrated, if it's rated well at all.
What's great about the X100 is the performance for its size. It's small, but not too small to hold, while the lens doesn't jut out at all. It's small when the camera is not in use, and remains small when you power the camera on. It's beautifully done, but there's no doubt that there are (significantly larger) 35 mm lenses that perform better. I mean, it's really a 23 mm lens, and when you even compare the X100's 23 mm lens to Fuji's own 23 mm f/1.4 (yes, I know the aperture is bigger), it's tiny.
I have the X100, and I really like the lens. It's not the best on the market, but it's still a great performer.
Also, the Canon M3 isn't comparable. It's more like a Fuji X-M or X-A, or maybe even X-E2.
Juhaz: I'm sitting here holding A6000 with the Samyang 12mm lens mounted on it, it's a combination pretty similar in size to this Q and according to my kitchen scale weights EXACTLY 640g with lens cap & hood, strap and a small quick release plate.
It feels a bit hefty, but pretty good in hand largely because it has a sizable grip, I can't imagine holding a slippery bar of soap weighting that much could be anything but extremely uncomfortable death grip.
Could one of the Leica fanboys trolling this thread extolling the magnificent ergonomics of this device explain to me how exactly is that "ergonomic"? Or how are the left-hand buttons that can't be used while looking through the viewfinder "ergonomic"?
And how do these limitations and misgivings supposedly make this a device for those "who enjoy pure photography"?
I seriously want to understand, do tell. Please.
Why are the Leica haters essentially telling Q owners that their experience with their camera is completely objective? Of course their opinion is objective!
marc petzold: A 50mm Lens -FF eqivalent- , even F1.4 for that price...and only for the Crop-Sensor APS-C Leica T, compared to this, a Sigma ART 50/1.4 for either Canon/Nikon Mount seems like a very good Bargain...and being FF, too.
Even i'd become a billionaire, i'd never burn that Money for some serious overpriced Leica Stuff, and i am german, too.
There are so many better alternatives for the price.
@Fingel: If you really believe that billionaires get to be that way because of that, then you are the most insanely naive person on the planet. I don't own this camera or lens. Am I a billionaire? Will I become a billionaire in the future? LOL
I don't have a problem with people spending $2000 for a camera with an APS-C sized sensor. The size of a sensor doesn't have anything to do with the cost of this Leica lens, or the cost of such a lens. Heck, I think it's far more optimal to buy an APS-C designed lens for an APS-C sized sensor. Heck, I'd go even further and just buy a Leica M (or the new stripped-down cheaper model that Leica released), but if someone already decided that the T is what they want, then this is probably the best choice of lens for that person).
kadardr: There is a real life review of Leica Q with detailed user experience and nice samples. Actually Ming kept the Q and sold the GR. http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/06/10/review-2015-leica-q-typ-116/
The guys throwing the insults don't know who Ming Thein is?
dgmessenger: 'the most powerful 4-inch smartphone ever.' With a 1.2mp 2007 front facing camera. Lol!!!!!
I agree with the selfie crowd.
I don't take them (and wouldn't keep the photo even if I did. It'd go straight to FB), but people do take them, and a 1.3 MP camera doesn't really allow for decent quality photos.
It's not the MP race, but there is a lower limit to quality. I think a 4 MP camera would do nicely, or whatever is being used/released by Sony at the mo.
maximme: Delighted to discover ( it took some work )that the ram is a overwhelming1 Gb RAM
the LOWEST in the market
I read it's 2 GB because it's an A9, and A9 processors only come with 2 GB (unless specially requested not to do so by a very large, powerful client(?))
Just what I read elsewhere, but not sure if it's true.
mrkarisma: My dream camera! Make it FF with a 35mm lens and around half the price of the original Sony RX1 with the next iteration and Im in!
It's your dream camera, except you'd change everything about it?
Horshack: I was going to comment on how the USA has influenced Barney's speech when I saw 'reckon' in the second sentence. But after a quick google search I learned the word is common in British English, which is surprising considering it's only common here in the south. Interesting how certain words have uncommon bedfellows.
"Reckon" is also incredibly common word in Australia.
It's not very uncommon at all. I think the author of that article simply hasn't travelled much.
Neez: I actually want this over my galaxy s6 because of the micro SD slot.
Actually, mobile phone storage, or any solid state storage, hasn't increased in size at a quick pace whatsoever.
joe6pack: F1.9 means nothing when sensor size is not known.
Actually, depending on what you're talking about, f1.9 can mean something in EVERY sensor size.
If you're talking about shutter speed, then it means the same thing whether you're talking about a large sensor, or a small sensor, because it means for a given ISO, you're going to be able to shoot at a faster shutter speed. Or you can shoot at the same shutter speed and use a lower ISO.
In a way, you're right when it comes to sensor noise, but if you can use a lower ISO due to the f/1.9 aperture, then that's better.
Besides, given a choice, you really cannot say that you'd rather have a f/2.5 or f/2.2 lens of the same quality.
RichRMA: For those of you who don't think Sony could or would cut Nikon out of the picture, think of what Amazon just did to Chromecast or Apple TV...
Sony isn't going to dump Nikon because they're a big customer who, I presume, pays their bills on time, and have been customers for over a decade.
Nikon isn't going to dump Sony unless they had a reason to, and they don't. Nikon also deals with Aptina and other sensor companies, but they CHOOSE to buy their sensors from Sony. Nikon has, and always had, a choice in the matter, and they chose Sony.
Lawn Lends: So basically Sony's RAW setting is really just a jpeg on steroids?
I don't have a Sony, but if there are any words in the manual or the camera menu system that says "RAW", I would be pisssed.
IMHO a lossy RAW is like hot ice -- one of the two descriptions is, at best, inaccurate, at worst a lie.
Exactly how I feel.
To me, a RAW file is raw data, and that's it. I already have a slight problem with "compressed" RAW, so "Lossy" RAW is just complete BS to my ears.
"Lossy RAW" is like learning that a certain "vegetarian" eats fish. You just want to slap them.
Tungsten Nordstein: Imaginative?
Do you act in commercial cinema, and star in movies?
If not, then can you still say that Nicolas Cage sucks at acting?
Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...
Think about it.
"But Jerry Uelsmann has been doing it" isn't a good argument for the "Yes, this is a photo" camp, either. For me, it doesn't, and it doesn't matter if you say "John Smith used to do the same 100 years ago."
For me, it's not about the existence of Photoshop, or the "amount" of manipulation done to the photo, but has everything to do with the "TYPE" of manipulation done to it. Photography was involved in the process of creating his images, but it's not the subject of his work. It's not his art. He doesn't want you to look at his photography. The subject is something else entirely.
It's like watching a video of a ballet dancer taken from a single angle. In this instance, I'd say the "ballet" is the subject. The video is just a vestibule to enable you to enjoy the dance.
Xentinus: I know there are many "if" scenarios and I don't want to be unfair for an innovative company;but while it is not lightweight and there are prime options, If it was 20-35 f 2.0 then it would have been special.18-35 1.8 was/is special because of 1.8 aperture at 18mm.
Since I'd be much more likely to shoot at 24 and 35 mm, and not at 70 mm, I'd say this lens serves a great purpose to those who would shoot using 2 primes within those two focal lengths.
The 24-70 mm f/2.8 never suited me. I owned one, but didn't use it as much as I thought I would.
Why do people talk about the 24-70 as if it's some kind of benchmark? It's not a lens for everyone.
alatchin: These are very interesting products... For those who clearly need speed over range this seems a compelling option... However the whole purpose of a zoom is versatility.
What we have done here is reduce some versatility in the range... well quite a lot really... for a slightly better noise performance.
I would be curious how well this would sell.
It shoots at f/2, which offers a LOT of versatility.
It just happens to be a different type of versatility than you're talking about.
Personally, I love shooting with 24, 35, 50, and 85 mm primes. Ideally, I'd be shooting with 24 mm, 43mm, and 85 mm primes, but 43 mm is hard to come by except on maybe Pentax.
RedFox88: If Leica made this they'd market it as a 24mm and a 35mm prime both f/2 in one lens. And they'd charge $4500 for it!
Only $4500. Where did you see Leica lenses on sale?
I love this camera, and I don't think it's THAT bad a deal. It's still too expensive for me though!
princecody: Who owns it?
It's sitting in a box, unopened, and yet it's already his favourite camera.
supeyugin1: No touchscreen, 5 fps? really? It's not gonna fly, and 42MP who needs that much?4K video with shitty compression? Not gonna work that good.
Since when did high-res variants of cameras become sports cameras? 5 fps is absolutely fine for this camera.
Just wait for a lower resolution version (A7S-2)