DPReview TV: Leica Q2 first impressions review

AmPhotoNJ:

You've confused "weather sealed" and "water proof".

Special means there's not many cameras that do what it does. i think this qualifies.

You have issues. Seek help.

Oh, I agree! I wasn't knocking Leica, but just pointing out that this is a sensitive topic and reviewers need to be careful not to set unrealistic expectations.

KR has been making money and vacationing with different cameras and lenses for years now -- all by himself , no chiefs, no troops. Thank you very much. :D

For me, the Leica Q's body design is nearly perfect as-is.

There are various accessories you can purchase to provide a more secure grip. I much prefer having this as an option for those who prefer it, rather than having a molded grip as part of the camera's design forced upon all users.

geopapa:

The Q's lens that good, plenty good, just not in the extraordinary M category.

I'm going to assume you assumed I've never owned education a Leica ;)

Regardless of whether or not you've owned one, your comment suggests a dismissive attitude towards the brand, and perhaps the opinion that only gullible sheep would buy their products.

For the record, I think it's perfectly fair to object to their pricing, or to state that their products aren't a good match for your needs. I just object to the notion that they make sub-par products whose success is based entirely on the exclusivity of the brand and its heritage.

All brands make tradeoffs in their product designs, and with the exception of price, I find Leica's approach to product design far superior to that of their rivals, at least with respect to the Q.

freediverx makes a good point: we see far too often on discussions, and I certainly have been guilty of this as well, of the attitude that "I don't like something so therefore no one else should." With it comes the implication that "only a fool would like this product; if you like it then you must be a fool."

It's a big world with a lot of people with a bunch of different opinions, and we need to respect that. And as noted, that's something I am working on as well.

Well it does lag behind the competition in certain areas. A CDAF-only AF system is pretty glaring in a $5,000 compact in 2019. That LCD is also not up to the level that one would expect from a high-end camera these days. And the buffer is poor.

On the other hand, a native ISO of 50 is, I believe, a first for any camera. Weathersealing with actual IPX ratings (even if they're fairly modest ones) is also a big step forward. Other companies have done that, but it's rare and very forward-thinking imo.

So there's some outdated tech here, but also some stuff that is genuinely groundbreaking. I think this camera is a big step in the right direction for Leica. The price, while high, is not actually insane, and it's more than just a pretty body. A true luxury camera should of course be gorgeous and a joy to use, but it should also offer performance to match. It's not perfect, but it's an example of the kind of thing I think Leica should be trying to do.

did you just skip over the fact that objectively speaking that device is more expensive and Less technically advanced then it's competition?

This is why I like a is the butt of all jokes and their customers as a result, it customers purchase sometimes knowingly a device daddy is not anywhere near as good as the competition and usually two three four or five times as expensive

So you're happy to pay more for less.

Where were you educated?

MP:

Assuming it's a very good (to extraordinary) Leica lens and the printing is done half decently it's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Now some of the results from better L lenses from Canon will look like a Leica if the Canon lens has been stopped down a good bit when the image was recorded.

@DarnGoodPhotos Corked wine has become contaminated with cork taint, a chemical compound called TCA (2,4,6 – trichloroanisole). It has nothing to do with sour grapes. Although the blind test could DPReview's seventh article. :-)

You can usually tell the Leica photos by the glaring lack of talent of the photographer.

Olifaunt:

Right, because talent people (in whatever field) never use extraordinary gear. Sarc.

What's wrong with Panasonic made parts? Panasonic makes great cameras across a wide price range.

I guess that pretty much rules out the Sony RX1 II for you as well:
1) Still $3300 for a camera made 100% of parts from a Japanese electronics company.
2) No dust ingress protection level, maybe slightly faster turnaround on servicing but with no certified protection likely needs cleaning more frequently.
3) Unremarkably average image quality when stopped down.

fPrime:

Dust on the sensor, it's been a problem with the Q? I've not read that. As others point out, the Q2 is weather sealed. Nor does either have a zooming lens.

Which Panasonic lens is this again?

I don't dispute that most digital cameras (not Canon) use Fujitsu image processing chips. But no one calls the Nikon D850 a Fujitsu.

Hadn't noted a drop in IQ when the lens is stopped down, and I've tried both the Q and Q2. Now I've not tried shooting at f/16.

HowaboutRAW, just Google “Leica Q dust problem” and you’ll get plenty of links. It’s such a risk that users actually tape up the mic and speaker holes of their Q’s.

And no doubt the Q’s lens design is probably Leica’s, but the body and battery are largely Panasonic. As you know they have had a deep collaboration in compact camera design for years. This far exceeds what we typically see in cameras using common Sony sensors or Fujitsu chips.

Lastly, the IMHO image quality of the Q doesn’t decline at higher apertures, it merely turns unremarkable compared to any other full frame. However, at f/1.7 the 28mm I will agree that the Q has a special rendering magic. Hence we intevitably see the Q only being shot wide open by its users.

Angrymagpie, there’s nothing wrong with Panasonic parts. After all Panasonic also makes fine shavers, rice cookers, and hair dryers, lol.

The problem here is Leica charging Leica prices for rather ordinary Panasonic parts.

HowaboutRAW, try “Leica Q dust problem” as I suggested, not “Leica Q dust” as you entered. Here’s a good link to get you rolling:

http://www.rickdavy.co.uk/blog/leica-q-dust-on-the-sensor-issue

Incidentally, I know you said you didn’t shoot your Q above f/5.6 so set it to f/16 and shoot the plain blue sky. I’ll bet you’ll see your own Q is showing some dust spots that you never knew were there!

And the RX1r II is still $3300.

Ebrahim, size vs Nikon
Quality vs Fuji APSC

Watch the video - it was explained within

I am someone who can understand the appeal of a fixed-lens camera. There's something simple and satisfying about a camera that is a single integrated package rather than something assembled from parts. Comparing the Q2 to an ILC package is relevant for some, but for others the fact that this is a fixed-lens compact is a part of its appeal. The RX1R II is worth considering especially given its lower price point, but it's a pretty different camera. It's a 35mm f/2 for starters, and also it's not sealed. It does have a better AF system, a tilting screen, USB charging, etc. so it's not as if the Q2 is the obvious winner (especially given the price difference) but I can certainly see preferring one over the other.

Yup the thing about the Q2 is that you really have to have very specific needs for this particular combo for it to make sense (a 28mm and f/1.4 and 40mp+ combo), as it's actually well priced against any 28/1.4 + 40mp body. But it reminds me of the iMac Pro, if you need an assembled Xeon W + Vega + 5K monitor, it's actually a good price, but the thing is most people if assembling would never make that specific combo, they'd make a much better value 9900K + 2080ti + 2 4K monitors,

But then again, the iMac Pro is an easy to use assembled system, vs tinkering with parts to get higher value.

I just think a Z7 + 35mm f/1.8 is a much better option for 90% of photographers, or an A7rIII + 28/2, then adding another 85mm 1.4 for the times you want to shoot with a different look and not shoot at 75mm 6.6mp f/4.4.

But yeah, I get it has its users who really want that 28mm FL with an f/1.4 aperture in a small package. The Nikon 28mm 1.4 is freaking 2000$ and is huge & old.

Get the Sony RX1R II ... you’ll save a fortune and trust me, love it much more (unless you’re a Leica snob 😄)

Arguably, a more minimal camera asks more from the photographer than one with lots of bells and whistles. It would be pretty cool if anyone dared to make a digital camera as minimalist as the old Pentax K1000. There's a reason why that camera is a legend and why it used to be the standard camera for student photographers.

They'll probably update RX1 series a year or two down the line. It's not a line that's updated often. I imagine we'll see an update with a newer high res sensor.

A7Rmk3 = $2,799
24mm F1.4 = $1399
$4,200 total.

The Leica is $800 more but obviously smaller.

Both have pros / cons.

But you can really just get an A7rII with still a great 42mp sensor and if you're a leica-style shooter you just need a good EVF + a shutter button which the 1500$ A7rII has, or even find a used one for a grand. Plus I just don't think most people would care about f/2 vs f/1.4 on a wide angle as much they think they would, so that's a 400$ lens that quite high quality.

I do get if you specifically need 40+mp + 28mm + 1.4 + small size combo there is really no other alternative

The A7R III (and Z7) is a much more capable all-rounder than the Q2. The Q2 is a niche camera, whereas the A7R III is one of the top contenders for all-around best camera, period. If you really want to stick to the Q2's niche of RAW-only, single-AF, single-shot, 28mm photography then they are competitive—the Q2 costs more but has better weather sealing, better fit & finish, and a less complicated interface. If you want a camera for general photography though then the A7R III is the way to go, no question. Also, the A7R III can be had for as low as $2,450 in "like new" condition on Amazon right now, which brings it from $800 cheaper to $1150 cheaper when combined with the 24mm 1.4 GM.

Size comparison:
Q2 vs A7rIII+28 mm f/2 vs Z7+35 mm f/1.8:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#820,724.507,794.785,ha,t

The 50R is a bohemoth. I was shocked by how much of a pig it is when I held it in hand, not a rangefinder-class size or weight at all, specially with the Fuji GFX metal lenses. I would buy it over the leica though just for the ability to slap on an UWA/Portrait lens. But I"d prefer a Z7 + 35mm f/1.8 S over them though

Zebebito - You're comparing apples with pears.

Then why the GFX was “compared” with the performance of full frame cameras? Apples and pears do not apply with Leica??

ZeBebito - Because the cameras are designed for different target groups, and for different genres of photography.

I see the GFX as *primarily* for pros and ultra-serious amateurs shooting landscapes, architecture and studio work. I see the Leica as *primarily* a rich man's camera for street and travel photography.

I don't see the price point as a valid ground for comparison - if it was, then D5 and 1Dxii (with 28mm) should also be included in the list as they meet all your criteria. But clearly they don't belong to the same category as the Leica, or the GFX.

Ebrahim - Really? You see the GFX as a street camera?

A street camera for NBA players, perhaps. It's like some kind of oversized novelty rangefinder. If you ask me that shape makes no sense at all in a camera of that size. A camera that big needs a substantial grip. There's nothing subtle about the GFX 50R, it's like a brick.

Quite a lot of people could afford it, if they really want it. They could get 10, 15, 20 years, or even more, out of it. Work out a cost per year and it's affordable. Question is, do they want to put a big chunk of their photography budget in a camera such as this? For some no; they have wider interests this won't touch. But for some people it could be just the sort of camera they want.

40% of Americans couldn't come up with $400 cash if they had to in an emergency. How many do you think have $5000 to spend on a luxury compact camera?

anticipation - Leica cameras aren't targetted at 40% of Americans. They're targeted at affluent people who have an appreciation of superb optics and beautifully engineered bodies, and who want a camera that is "different" from the everyday mass production MILC or DSLR.

It's beyond my budget, but I'd love to have one. A fixed focal length camera teaches one to try harder. The 35mm of the Sony RX1 is too long, so I'd choose the Leica for its 28mm optics and for the sheer pleasure of operating it.

It has quirks which can slow down operation and create problems with some types of photography, but slowing oneself down often results in better, more considered images.