Q compared to RX1Rii - especially for miro3

Thank you very much!

Is the AF on the Q that much faster than on the RX1Rii?

Those are nice shots from the RX1Rii.

Dr. Ulrich Rohde wrote:

I have both cameras and agree with you on all points. The 28mm is a good choice and 35 is a bit close to 50. On the M 10 I have used the 28 mm frequently and there is no M and M lens combination which produces the same quality picture as the Q. And yet I would really like to have a Q-Plus ( with a 2.5, better 2.8 ) zoom 28 > 50mm optical and then 75 maybe 90 mm electronically but using as max a 36 MP sensor , similar to the Sony.

The Sony users interface is must be an acquired taste , or simply said : cumbersome .

Yes, a Q Vario with a zoom will be a very desirable camera for me.

I would prefer a 25-50/2.8 zoom.

Touch tiltable LCD, 4K video, improved low light performance.

miro3 wrote:

Thank you very much!

Is the AF on the Q that much faster than on the RX1Rii?

Those are nice shots from the RX1Rii.

Yes much faster, no hunting. Makes a difference when peeling off multiple shots when shooting from the hip. Q's image quality is as good as the RX, just not as many megapixels

athensGA wrote:

Irakly Shanidze wrote:

I fully agree on 28mm limitations, but not on your logic of not using the camera due to its high price. When I was a kid, my tennis coach said "always take good care of your racquet, but never protect it when you play". As simple as this: if you are busy protecting your racquet, you lose.

Nice thoughts, sir, thanks. I just really struggled with the concept of owning a $4000 camera. Not that it wasn't worth it and not that i wasn't totally smitten by the thing. It's a shame because i have a $8000 trail bike and i abuse that thing like it was stolen.

Buy a lightly used Q from a reputable place like Fred Miranda if one comes up for sale. I did that and got a great one- saved lots over buying new.

1. athensGA wrote:

Irakly Shanidze wrote:

I fully agree on 28mm limitations, but not on your logic of not using the camera due to its high price. When I was a kid, my tennis coach said "always take good care of your racquet, but never protect it when you play". As simple as this: if you are busy protecting your racquet, you lose.

Nice thoughts, sir, thanks. I just really struggled with the concept of owning a $4000 camera. Not that it wasn't worth it and not that i wasn't totally smitten by the thing. It's a shame because i have a $8000 trail bike and i abuse that thing like it was stolen.

Oh, and my trail bike is a $3K Trek Superfly 8 that also gets abused regularly : )

I had Sony Rx1 and now a Q. Yes like the Q more especially using the frame lines for 35mm and 50mm. They remind me of the M8 which would be a M10 if I could manually focus (bad hands). I believe 35mm image  is very good, the 50mm is OK for internet. If Leica could get a 42mm sensor, then all three FOVs would be great.

If you had a Q zoom, you would no longer have the frame lines, the camera weight would increase quite bit, the autofocus would slow down, and f1.7 turns into 2.8 or more. Also, the button for switching frame lines turns into a much slower twist of the lens. I believe that Leica should stay with the Q design basically as is, but add more Pixels and a drop down LCD. Then, add a Q plus with  more mega Pixels,  75mm lens with frame lines for 90mm and 135mm.

I love this small camera, but also need the Q plus for closeup street photography. I tried a T, but couldn't hold it or use the add-on viewfinder. I just bought an Olympus Pen F which fits my hands perfectly and uses the m.Zuiko 75mm that's on it and a Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f1.2 in the future. Pen F is nice, but would rather have a Q plus. Don't ruin the Q design.

RABphotoX wrote:

I had Sony Rx1 and now a Q. Yes like the Q more especially using the frame lines for 35mm and 50mm. They remind me of the M8 which would be a M10 if I could manually focus (bad hands). I believe 35mm image is very good, the 50mm is OK for internet. If Leica could get a 42mm sensor, then all three FOVs would be great.

If you had a Q zoom, you would no longer have the frame lines, the camera weight would increase quite bit, the autofocus would slow down, and f1.7 turns into 2.8 or more. Also, the button for switching frame lines turns into a much slower twist of the lens. I believe that Leica should stay with the Q design basically as is, but add more Pixels and a drop down LCD. Then, add a Q plus with more mega Pixels, 75mm lens with frame lines for 90mm and 135mm.

I love this small camera, but also need the Q plus for closeup street photography. I tried a T, but couldn't hold it or use the add-on viewfinder. I just bought an Olympus Pen F which fits my hands perfectly and uses the m.Zuiko 75mm that's on it and a Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f1.2 in the future. Pen F is nice, but would rather have a Q plus. Don't ruin the Q design.

FYI, I'm not the poster above who wants a zoom lens, and frankly I have no use for them even on my Sony A7Rii. But I would however love an articulating LCD.

it is almost every day I hear something about the q with the 28 and most often lamenting its not the thirty five. I even saw one rather far fetch idea that leica made it 28 to limit sales.

for me the 28 is a stroke of genius giving the full frame 24mpx sensor you can get very excellent results cropping to even fifty mms but thirtyfive mm is a piece of cake, and to paraphrase the late ceo of Seiko watch with the twenty eight its very easy to shoot thirty five mm and you will not even have to change lenses oh wait I forgot you cannot but you would not need to anyway. I tested this idea out on my M240 and put a cosina 28 on it and blasted a way for a couple months or more before going to a fifty just for a different lens. the idea works spectacularly well for the market the camera is aimed at which is the well heeled traveler.  No nedd for interchangeable lenses and if you had a thirty five you could never uncrop to twenty eight. and all that in a camera thats comfortable to carry around all day

they are working on a new model and I sure do hope the do not change from the twenty eight

bosjohn21 wrote:

it is almost every day I hear something about the q with the 28 and most often lamenting its not the thirty five. I even saw one rather far fetch idea that leica made it 28 to limit sales.

for me the 28 is a stroke of genius giving the full frame 24mpx sensor you can get very excellent results cropping to even fifty mms but thirtyfive mm is a piece of cake, and to paraphrase the late ceo of Seiko watch with the twenty eight its very easy to shoot thirty five mm and you will not even have to change lenses oh wait I forgot you cannot but you would not need to anyway. I tested this idea out on my M240 and put a cosina 28 on it and blasted a way for a couple months or more before going to a fifty just for a different lens. the idea works spectacularly well for the market the camera is aimed at which is the well heeled traveler. No nedd for interchangeable lenses and if you had a thirty five you could never uncrop to twenty eight. and all that in a camera thats comfortable to carry around all day

they are working on a new model and I sure do hope the do not change from the twenty eight

They are working on at least two new models: one with a fixed focal length, and another with a 25-50/2.8 zoom.

if the zoom is compact enough it may be interesting but I hate giving up the f1.7 lens

yup,