A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted

Thanks so much for the research. If I can get a weekend day off I will come.

Of course a crowded show floor isn't the same as going out int the world to shoot.

If I brought a couple of memory cards with me do you think they'd let me take photos so I can bring them home and process on the computer?

A further question since you seem to have some experience with this sort of thing. If I can manage to get time off to make the day trip, which day is usually the lightest crowd and easiest to get around?

Hi,
Apparently the show is Wednesday through Friday. Do you think Wednesday would be the lightest day? If I'm going to make the trip to the city, 3hours+ plus each way using car and train, I really want to make it count.
And thanks again for your suggestions. Your profile seems blank, but Id guess your are in the industry?

HowaboutRAW,
One more question if it isn't too bothersome:
I've noticed a number of the people I've been communicating with have few if any photos in the DP galleries when I looked at profiles. As of this afternoon I'm up to 49 images. Is that dumb on my part? Should I more closely be protecting myself?
Personally I think its interesting to see the progression from iPhoto to Lightroom and a DX kit lens to a used f2.8 pre-owned lens.

@Dstudio
But then you argue below only the appreciation of perfection of a Leica gained from the wisdom of old age enables you to be a true artist. Now we are being told imperfection is a somehow an aid to finding beauty. This Leica world is all very confusing but it is very much mysterious and out of my reach so it is intriguing.
Probably if you really need the best and can afford it it is the way to go.

Well I guess it works out OK, because those who don't appreciate it need not spend money on it, and they won't. There are plenty of those "average" cameras you mentioned to go around.

Yet it's a shame some don't appreciate it when a genuine feat is accomplished. I admire what Leica does (when they do it right), and this impresses me very much.

I *do* appreciate it. Not just the feat, but the results themselves - some of which are posted here. I probably won't buy one. But if I had a genuine need or application I'd find a way to get one. Either way I'll still admire and appreciate it.

Interesting points, yet the look and 'feel' of a digital image can easily be manipulated during photo editing. The resolution and some of the grain I'm seeing in the Leica pics just doesn't add up to a camera at this price range in today's market. Am no 'fanboy' of Sony or any manufacturer for that matter, as have used Leica, Hasselblad, etc over the years. IMHO your money is better invested elsewhere than this Leica. Yes I agree the Leica pics here have a pleasant personality, and if you like that personality straight out of the camera then that's all well and good provided you don't have the talent to post-process that same look and feel (or are too lazy to do it yourself).

to Steven R. Rochlin,
I know from personal experience that manipulation goes only so far.
There is no way to make a silk purse out of the proverbial sow's ear. I find that I need to do less with good Leica images than with some of the others. Perhaps bump up the color a little according to taste, play with shadow-highlights tool a little, adjust the exposure as needed and crop to taste. But manipulation will never make a lousy shot, Leica or otherwise even an acceptable one.

You don't even need to look that closely. Just look at the photos in the near-full-screen "bottom-filmstip" view. The girl, the dog, the blackberries, the rose, the broken window in the gas station. Everything is more culpable - like you are there or want to be there. I can almost feel the powdery texture of the rose as I look at it.

If others can't see the difference, then too bad. Because unlike many (most?) cameras, this camera/lens definitely has "it."

For those who can't notice (or refuse to learn to see) these characteristics, you're missing out on the artistic side of photography.

Well ios9 is in beta so it was a just a heads up to dpr. I also let apple know apple know.

Lou,

Right, I had thought iOS8 the most recent, but it's a browser thing generally.

For example the crapware on the Salon.com website will lock up Safari on current Macs.

So of course the solution is to run say Firefox with Adblock and Noscript.

Given that it took DPR 2 years+ to fix the enforced sign-in to the now dead GearShop, a problem that continued for months after the official end of GearShop, I'd not hold my breath for DPR to fix a website.

Or think of it as word processor or video player and an unfamiliar format, one tries different programs to open the files. But in this case one would try different web browsers that aren't Safari for iOS.

I realize that iOS 9 and Safari are having a problem (mine exhibits the same issue).

Nevertheless, I find it humorous for someone who runs a mature 6-year-old laptop OS to comment on how easy it is to "just change the browser."

That's exactly the same I was thinking when I was looking at these pictures. If you are a pixel peeper however, and not the image maker, they obviously do matter to some.

Greynerd:

Those PanaLeica lenses are good, but not as good as they should be.

I just retried the 25mm f/1.4. On a GX8 it wasn't real impressive.

Jefftan:

Right, put good lenses on those cameras, Olympus has more than few and there are some good Panasonics, and get very good results.

For the Sony you'll have to get a big FE lens, or the $1000 SonyZeiss, or the Sigmas---the Zeisses by Zeiss aren't real strong for that body.

mschan:

And few are saying "couldn't get this from a RX1".

But the RX1 has compressed raws, slow auto focus, a not good manual focus, no built in EVF, and is not exactly inexpensive.

Hi RAW, We don't agree but that is how forums work. Thanks for the reply though.

Greynerd, you know that old saying about how "teenagers think they know everything?" Well, they almost do - at least in the broad sense.

But what we realize as we grow a bit older is there are many subtleties in life that you weren't aware of as a teen. In the areas that become most important to us we continue to learn these subtleties.

I think that's the case here. If the artistic side of photography becomes really important to you you'll start to notice these differences. But they are more subtle - they won't be obvious through casual observation.

The good news for most photographers is that many viewers will notice these differences without being consciously aware of it. But the photos will still capture their attention or "connect" with them more readily. So a good camera - just like good composition - still works in your favor.

mcshan,

Right now I'm trying to think of anyone (based on photos I've seen) who's made better lenses than Leica.

Anything I can think of is medium format or larger. And I'm still not sure they're actually "better," although they produce some outstanding results.

So while you may laugh, you still won't be able to do it (get equivalent photos from an RX1). Maybe you should stop laughing and gain a serious appreciation of the fine characteristics Leica has managed to imbue in many of their lenses.

DStudio, Been shooting Leica for pushing 60 years now. You can get this from the RX1.

No, mcshan, you actually can't distinguish the better quality of these photos on an iPad - at least not on mine.

I realize you were making a joke, but you need to view the photos on a good desktop (or possibly laptop) monitor, or else you genuinely *won't* see the difference.

grapeshot:

Do you have Fuji XT1 shots done at the same time at very similar settings?

grape:

So that's a no.

grapeshot:

Kodak?

The point, moonbeams or no, is that you don't have Fuji X APSC shots of the same scenery on the same day at the same time with nearly the same camera settings.

GA:

Just so you know, the Ricoh GR has a much slower lens, and no EVF. It's an excellent lens, but it remains to be seen if the Leica Q's is better.

The Ricoh is also an APSC sensor.

The point is if Ricoh's example had an EVF, full framed sensor and a 1.8 lens, the price would be more than $2500.

brendon:

At this level of Leica, it's about lens optical quality which I see you acknowledge, the other things vary, and Leica is not particularly known for digital bodies.

And still the Sony A7 uses compressed raws, and has an infuriatingly loud mechanical shutter. In many ways the Fuji XT1 and Samsung NX1 are better cameras than the Sony A7.

b:

What lens are you using on that 5DIII?

^^ I was referring to the pulling and pushing only. Didn't say anything about color cause at times I actually do prefer the color of the Canon files to my Sony. AF wise its a no contest and the Canon is leagues ahead of the Sony but I still prefer the Sony files when it comes to pushing.

Rarely do I encounter a scenario where I have screwed up so badly that the files cannot be pushed or pulled beyond the capabilities of the sensor. And if this pushing and pulling has resulted in artifacts (highly possible) they aren't big enough for me to really notice them.

But with the Canon I encounter such scenarios more often.

just seems to me if you could buy an A7 around your neck and the GR in your pocket and that would make the Q seem an incredibly limiting waste of money in comparison

Gramham:

Note what brendon says about preferring the colour from the Canon files.

The GR is a nice camera, its lens is not as fast as that of the Leica Q.

Also then you'd have to have two cameras.

People who use them don't call the Sony RX1 a limiting waste of money.

Graham everyone's needs are different. While yes some people simply have money and don't mind spending, photographer is still an art form for many and their choice of tool needs to appeal to them.

I have upgraded to an A7 from a crop sensor Sony A55 and as much as the IQ has improved on the A7 I simply don't care too much for its skin tone rendition. No matter how much I try and what filters I use they simply don't look that great to me.

The Canon I feel does a better job on skin tones but then I don't like how little I can push the RAW files.

So its all a compromise at the end of the day and people looking for the best compact camera will not be happy with an APS-C sensor GR with a slow f2.8 lens.

But is the Q a true compact camera? Size wise it's getting towards the A7 surely?

Look people who want to buy such a camera have money. People like you and me can't justify spending so much for a fixed lens camera.

The Sony RX1 is also a pretty popular camera and the Q has a wider lens and a darn good EVF while not costing a great deal more.

the GR fits in your pocket, the Leica will empty them. But you'll have a really nice camera around your neck.

miles green,

The continual comparisons to the GR are uninformed.

The GR has a MUCH SLOWER lens, and at APSC sensor.

The Leica Q is a bit better at higher ISOs too, by about 1 stop.

The GR has no EVF.

The GR is an excellent camera, but a significantly different class.

The current X also has a much faster lens than the GR--same sensor basically.

I think you aren;'t quite grasping the point.

you have something that's too big for your pocket in the Q, why not just use a Sony A7?

Or lieca
S?

As an engineer, I'm practical. I pay for the product itself, which I will use, without the penalty of paying for a name, regardless of "who" that name might be.

Some people pay for the name because that's the brand they have used for years, and they are happy and comfortable with it.
Some others pay for the name because they want to brag and show off.

So different people behave differently
I'd love to get some data on how many copies of this camera will be sold at $6,000.

Fortunately Leica engineers realize a great lens can't be designed solely on a computer, or with parts that satisfy bean counters.

In fact, even if it's a little overpriced, perhaps that's the only pragmatic way to get past the bean counters (which is why everyone who prices their lenses ~right never seems to quite achieve these higher quality results).

And while I keep talking about the lens, it appears they did an excellent job on the rest of the camera too.

sh10453, as an engineer you should know better that that :) ...
yes, a part of the price is "the brand" ... but it's not like you buy *the exact same camera* (meaning same build quality, same lens quality, same manufacturing process - i know, you don't care about this one, but that adds real cost, same design, same materials, etc).
Also, selling fewer units they have to have a larger profit margin (you know for paying employees, managers, taxes, and all that)

If you look at same models (T 109) it's about 1000$ while LX100 is about 700$, so that's about only the name difference, and even that has different body, which might worth the price difference in many people's view.

Thanks badi :-) .. I'm very well familiar with all stages, manpower, finance, marketing, ..., etc., that's involved in making a product.

Yes, "in many people's view", as you said.
I only spoke of my own view, and I respect all views, no matter how different from mine they might be.

I still think that $6,000 for this camera is outrageous, especially if it cannot deliver a SIGNIFICANTLY better image quality than a camera costing half, third, sixth this price or even less.

Dynamic range does NOT need post processing to show .Either it's extended , or it's limited.Just look at the sky here ...bb_ISO100_f:8.0_L1010659-ACR.jpg

and then tell me you like it.People here doesn't talks about cats and barns .For your - bad - luck ,this A7rII video shows quite similar scenery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jor_WkheaE

Now I might be clueless ,but my eyes like this video more.

I had trouble with the "cats and barns" comment too. There may be too many of them out there, but I've definitely seen excellent photos of both.

I hoping it was just a colorful comment, and the real meaning is that every gallery on DPR contains some not-so-good photos, and you shouldn't judge a camera or lens by them. Pick out the nice ones instead.

But I wholeheartedly agree that you should be able to see a camera's potential (and judge most of its actual performance) whether or not the samples are from processed RAWs.

Also, just because a camera is over someone's budget doesn't mean it's over his head. He can still make good judgements about it - as long as he's not prejudiced by the price or name.

I agree, Imho, MT's images however nice, he's only aiming at technical post processing... Every images of his carries a ton of micro-contrast....but way way way too dark as an artistic image
Every image looks the same..... carries the same dark vibe!!

Gaz:

Okay, but that just means you like the Samsung white balance settings.

Do you mean you don't like the raw white balance settings for this Q? I assume you don't live in that area of Washington state, so can't check for accuracy.

Not really a surprise that in raw with that 30mm lens and NX500 you prefer your results to that from many Nikons.

Hi
I won't judge the Leica Q as a camera by these photos displayed here but I can compare these photos to the ones I have shot with a much cheaper camera and lens. I simply don't know how good the Leica really is. Barney has shot these images in his own time and circumstances and I can only express my opinion based on that. I live in Australia where the light conditions are often harsh and contrasty. Getting white balance right is not always easy.

I like both to be honest, and I'm sure Leica would post very punchy images through their marketing department, as people want to be wowed to be enticed to spend that sort of coin.
I like car images to be true and accurate, but like flowers, landscapes etc to be a bit punchy.

I would get this camera in a flash if it had a 50mm/35mm f1.7 lens. I can't see myself shooting a $4250 28mm all day....

My RX10 produces fairly faithful images right from the box, that are just a little on the punchy side.
P mode and some adjustments up or down, give you what you need.