News Leica Q Type 116 Leaked Image, Specs

I don't know why tilt-screens are eschewed. :) Granted, they introduce potential failure points/weaknesses into the physical design, if implemented poorly. However, the pluses to me outweigh the minuses. When I had a D5200, I loved the fact that I could use it as a pseudo-waist level finder, and given how far that screen could twist in the dimensions it could, I got Hail-Mary over the head shots, close-ups of things low to the ground that would send me to the chiropractor, etc.
 
Unlike Bill, as someone who LOVED the RX1 but always wished it was 28mm instead of 35, this is pretty much a dream camera for me. Unfortunately, I can't imagine Leica believes in things like auto-ISO with minimum shutter speed control, so I'd probably never buy it at an RX1 price. And at a Leica price, well, it's one of those things that if you have to ask, you can't afford it. I have to ask. I won't own one unless they adopt Panasonic's strategy of dumping their 4 month old products that aren't selling well for about half price or less. Since that isn't gonna happen....

Ray, I'm not sure about the X or T series, but the M9 and M240 have an Auto ISO function that allows you to set minimum shutter speed and maximum ISO. It's the most logical implementation of Auto ISO I've seen.

Price wise, it (disturbingly) makes sense to me. Consider that the Sony RX1 was $3000 at launch. Add 'red dot tax' and account for lower production in a much smaller company, plus a very high spec EVF, touchscreen and wifi controllability, and $4500 is getting to be understandable.

Yes, the price is out of the range of many buyers. Yes, the price is out of whack with the specs of similarly-priced cameras. But no other company offers a camera with this unique constellation of features, size and build. As an avid wide angle shooter and Leica M owner, the Q is a Dream. Come. True. On paper, at least.
 
Ray, I'm not sure about the X or T series, but the M9 and M240 have an Auto ISO function that allows you to set minimum shutter speed and maximum ISO. It's the most logical implementation of Auto ISO I've seen.

Price wise, it (disturbingly) makes sense to me. Consider that the Sony RX1 was $3000 at launch. Add 'red dot tax' and account for lower production in a much smaller company, plus a very high spec EVF, touchscreen and wifi controllability, and $4500 is getting to be understandable.

Yes, the price is out of the range of many buyers. Yes, the price is out of whack with the specs of similarly-priced cameras. But no other company offers a camera with this unique constellation of features, size and build. As an avid wide angle shooter and Leica M owner, the Q is a Dream. Come. True. On paper, at least.
Yeah, I'd be kind of shocked if it sold for much less, being a full frame Leica with an awesome lens. And that they DO provide an auto ISO / min shutter speed control (how high do they let you set the minimum in those other models?) will make it that much more painful not to have one. But since I've had the DF with some nice primes (even a few Zeiss) I haven't really missed the RX1 except sentimentally, and the price is just prohibitive for me, much as I might like one. I doubt I have more than about $6-7,000 in my entire system (having bought almost all of my lenses used) and spending another $4500 for a nicer, and larger version of the Coolpix A and/or smaller and quieter version of the DF with a great 25 or 28 prime just doesn't add up for me, lust aside...

I did often say that if the RX1 had a 28mm lens, shutter speed control with its auto ISO, and a lens that would stay focussed at a given distance when you powered it off and on, it would have been my perfect camera. And it sounds like this may be all of that! But unless I was willing to sell everything else for just this one camera (which I'm not), it's gonna have to stay Perfect. On. Paper. For me at least. I'm gonna have to try not to read too much about it when it hits though! :cool:

-Ray
 
I don't know why tilt-screens are eschewed. :) Granted, they introduce potential failure points/weaknesses into the physical design, if implemented poorly. However, the pluses to me outweigh the minuses. When I had a D5200, I loved the fact that I could use it as a pseudo-waist level finder, and given how far that screen could twist in the dimensions it could, I got Hail-Mary over the head shots, close-ups of things low to the ground that would send me to the chiropractor, etc.
I love tilt screens. I don't use them all that much, but I love them when I do. I've never had a camera with one that I'd wished didn't have it and I've often wished for one on cameras that didn't have them. The only possible downside I can see (and about the only downside I've ever seen expressed by those who hate em) is that they're theoretically more fragile, but I've never seen one break or fail in any way despite plenty of hard use. So I can't see any rational reason not to buy a camera just because it has one... You're not required to use it in any case, and if you don't, the fragility argument goes completely out the window...

-Ray
 
I have two cameras with tilty screens - the X-T1 and the X-M1. With both, had there been a non tilty screen option, even at extra cost, I would have had it in preference. On both of mine the screen is now taped firmly down. It introduces a weakness and extra complexity. On both, I have caught it on clothes before I applied the tape. I neither want nor need the facility and I would rather not have it. Saying I don't have to use it ignores that it is a practical, not an aesthetic objection. It's a bit like saying the camera has a built-in corkscrew but you don't have to use it.
 
Well, having had several of them (Nex 5, EP3, EPL3, EPL5, EM5, EM1, GX7, XT1, G7X, and a GH2 with a fully articulated screen), I've never once accidentally caught my clothing on one or otherwise had a mishap with one. As for weakness, if they were gonna be prone to breaking or bending, I'd have done it by now. So I guess I can't relate to either concern. Not that I don't believe you, but it's just not a complaint I've heard before so I don't think it's widespread.

I guess I'll revise my comment to say that for most people, we aren't required to use them so there's no downside to them. When I had a camera with a fully articulated screen, I never found any use for it at all, so I just never used it, but it never got in the way... Fortunately, there are plenty of options for cameras both with and without them for each of us to choose from.

-Ray
 
I bought the X1 - with some doubts, because at the time it was the first entry-level 'real' Leica (i.e. non-Panasonic compact). It was $2000 and proved to be a real gem. Now this Q seems to be different (or "better") in these ways: 1) 28 mm instead of 35 mm. I prefer 35 mm. 2) Full frame instead of APS-C. That's a big plus I think. 3) Aesthetics, if the most common photo is accurate, is a cross between a D-Lux and an X Vario. My opinion is, I like the X1 old-camera look - like an older Leica. 4) Controls: I like the controls that Panasonic/Leica put on the D-Lux. If they add other controls but have a dial setup like the D-Lux, that would be welcome.

I really liked the X Vario, although I wish they had done something to make the camera less front-heavy and unbalanced that way. I got rid of my Leica T - don't want to say any more about that.

It will be difficult for Leica to discourage me from buying the Q, but they may succeed if they aim for fashion in lieu of function.
 
At this price you could buy two RX1s and a GR, or about 8 Sigma DP Merrills.

The Leica's IQ and usability had better be something pretty stellar as for the size factor nothing comes close to the Sigma DP Merrills.
The Merrills ARE the leading resolution, detail and DR IQ compacts.
 
If what I see in the last 2 images - a body shape just like an M camera, I dunno. Maybe that will sell, but why I don't know. I think older (i.e. the "old Leica" X1 shape) or a newer body design would be better.
 
At this price you could buy two RX1s and a GR, or about 8 Sigma DP Merrills.

The Leica's IQ and usability had better be something pretty stellar as for the size factor nothing comes close to the Sigma DP Merrills.
The Merrills ARE the leading resolution, detail and DR IQ compacts.
Sure, but the Merrills are also specialty cameras with day to day limitations that make them great for some uses and terrible for others. I'd never own a Merril as anything other than a specialty camera and, thus, I wouldn't own one. To me, the GR or Coolpix A is a far more compelling argument, doing pretty much everything this Leica will do, but maybe only 80-85% as well? But having owned an RX1 and a Coolpix A and shot pretty extensively with a GR and DP1M, that last 15-20% that the RX1 (and, presumably this Leica) bring to the table is a REALLY enticing 15-20%. The Coolpix A / GR images are great - the RX1 images are well beyond that, and In ways I was very aware of after shooting with it a while. I fully expect the I,ages from this Leica will be at the level as well.

I won't buy the Leica because it's simply out of my price range and I have a DF that does all of those things as well with the same amazing IQ and a Coolpix A that does the key parts of those things about 80-85% as well in a much smaller package. But if I could reasonably afford it, I'd buy it in a NY minute and would carry it exclusively a lot of the time. I'd buy it before any combinations of GRs and Merrills and RX1s, although I think the RX1 is likely its equal. But apparently this Leica will have a focal length and 3-4 very key features that would likely make it a much better fit for me than even the beloved RX1. And the RX1 was MUCH beloved, so I don't say that lightly!

-Ray
 
Some people are saying that the camera wrapped in red paper is a rebadge of the Panasonic GM5, which would be an interesting turn of Leica returning to a four-thirds size sensor, if indeed, that happens. I'd vote for a redesigned X Vario with a constant f4 lens and the 24mp Sony sensor that is in more recent cameras.

The latest leaked photo of the Q suggests that it is smaller than a X, though. Much smaller. Original rumours said it was about the same size as a Sony RX1, which my bag and back would appreciate even more. With any luck, Leica will have a groovy (overpriced) grip that attaches to the bottom and perhaps even has an access port for the battery and card.
 
i'm not a sigma user, but im not sure how we can single them out as 'specialty' cameras when specifically juxtaposed against a 28mm fixed lens $4500 camera. sure the sigmas are in and of themselves good at some things, not good at others. but whether one 'likes' 28mm or not, one must admit it itself is a 'specialty' fl, no? i mean by definition 28mm is really good at some things and terrible at others, just like the sigmas are reputed to be.
 
The only limiting factor of the Leica (other than the price) is having a fixed focal length. The Sigmas are additionally handicapped by not having a viewfinder, getting noisy pretty quickly after leaving base ISO, being slow to focus, slow to write and being forced to use Sigma's awful software. There may be one or two other things I'm forgetting because I sold mine last year (after trying it for a second time.......the files are just so beautiful I had to give it another shot).

I think even most Sigma lovers will admit that their cameras as specialty cameras and reckon that very few people use them as their only camera or camera system.

The RX1, GR, Coolpix A (and presumably this Leica, too) are used by many as a main rig. Most don't feel too limited by a camera with a FOV similar to the human eye.
 
i'm not a sigma user, but im not sure how we can single them out as 'specialty' cameras when specifically juxtaposed against a 28mm fixed lens $4500 camera. sure the sigmas are in and of themselves good at some things, not good at others. but whether one 'likes' 28mm or not, one must admit it itself is a 'specialty' fl, no? i mean by definition 28mm is really good at some things and terrible at others, just like the sigmas are reputed to be.
It's a fair point - certainly any fixed lens, fixed focal length camera is a "specialty" camera in a sense. So the Coolpix A, GR, X100, etc, etc, are specialty cameras in that sense. And by definition, any camera that costs nearly $5000 is a specialty camera just by virtue of how few people will ever be able to afford it, or at least justify the cost of it. So, sure, when you combine a fixed lens/focal length with a high price tag, you're dealing with a double specialty. I put the RX1 into more or less the same category at it's new pricing, maybe not so much at current used prices. And almost every camera is a "specialty" camera in a sense because each has some things it does well and some things it does much less well. The RX100 and G7X are specialty cameras - the only thing they do better than a host of other models is fit in a pocket. This seems to matter to a good number of people, but it's a specialty feature for sure.

That said, once we're talking about fixed focal length, fixed lens cameras, any of the cameras noted above are capable of doing nearly anything one can reasonably do at their respective focal lengths, maybe with the exception of super fast auto-focus. But the Sigmas are in a whole different league in terms of specialty. Each is also a fixed lens/focal length camera, so therefore with the same inherent limitation as any of the cameras noted above. But they also can't really do much in lower than excellent light. It can hang in there at ISO 320, but you really want to be shooting as close as possible to base ISO. Yes, if you know what you're doing in post, you can isolate the blue color channel and get decent B&W shots up to 1600, maybe 3200 in a push, but using a single color channel is a pretty limited version of B&W and you need to know what you're doing to get there. It's incredibly slow shot to shot, so even firing off 3-4 shots in a row - not burst mode, but just back to back to back, you're shooting blind to the extent you can even do it. People say the Fuji cameras and the DF "slow you down and change your approach", but really that's just an option with those cameras (as it is with any) - you can shoot as fast or as slow as you want to with those cameras. The Sigmas force the issue to an extent that significantly limits the types of shooting you can do with them. It's possible to shoot on the street with them, but you better nail the first shot - you don't get to fire off another couple as the scene evolves. I wouldn't even think about shooting any sort of action with one. Although I've seen some great portraits from them, it's only a particularly sharp detailed type of portrait that may not work well generally. And, finally, processing the files adds a really cumbersome step to anyone's work flow unless they're content to ONLY use Sigma's SPP program, in which case you're significantly limiting your processing options.

The Sigmas are AMAZING landscape cameras, architecture cameras, flower cameras, etc, in very good light, if their rendering is to your liking, and you can process the files effectively. The detail in the files is simply mind-boggling. I had the DP1M for a couple of months and it was incredibly great at that which it did well. Although even within it's specialty there are tradeoffs. Lenses that are designed for the ultimate in sharpness (which the Sigma would have to be since it's spending it's life in front of that sensor) tend not be great for bokeh, and the bokeh from the DP1M was pretty nasty looking to me - I have a few semi macro shots where the flower or spider's web look incredible, but the OOF background is just awful. Each of the other cameras under discussion has much more "balanced" lenses, good sharpness, good bokeh, pretty good at everything (with the RX1 being pretty great at everything). The Sigmas are insanely great for limited uses but those uses are so limited relative to the other cameras at it's focal length can that I consider them much MORE specialized cameras than the others.

Almost any camera is better at some things than others and can be said to be somewhat specialized and maybe each of us considers "specialized" cameras those that don't do well at what we do well? But the Sigmas, IMHO anyway, are far more specialized than most.

-Ray
 
I'd certainly agree with Ray about the Sigmas; they do feel like a niche within a niche, particularly in their current "electric can-opener slash electric razor" body form. But let us remember that up to the turn of the century the fixed lens camera was the norm then the premium option - Olympus Trip (40mm) XA (35mm) Yashica T4, T5 (35mm) Contax T (35mm) and T2 (38mm) the Rollei 35 (40mm) and so on. Thing is, although there were some that were 28mm (the Ricoh R1 for instance), it was not a common focal length. I'm on record as saying that the fixed 28mm on this thing is a turn-off; it makes the camera bulky and "specialised". I carry my Ricoh GR absolutely everywhere, because it is compact and pocketable, but also because it offers a built-in "digital crop" to 47mm. at the moment the only known reason for me to "upgrade" when it's rumoured successor hits the streets would be the increase in megapixels making that crop more viable. My absolute nirvana would actually be a 40-50mm lens in that superlative GR body, with a built-in EVF; a bit like a digital Rollei 35...

Plus cà change, plus ce lá meme chose...
 
luke i'm not sure 'many' would use a fixed 28mm as their main rig. some, sure, maybe reportage, maybe landscape photogs. and as another tool in the kit, sure. but imo many many more wouldnt consider it their main cam than would, regardless of price. i think many more would consider a 35, and probably double that many more would consider a fixed 50 as main rigs. i know this is wholly subjective, but i have to believe the concept of a 'normal' fl was conceived for a reason, and 28 has i believe historically fallen outside the 'normal' fl parameter. now personally, i dont like the normal of normal, 50mm. but i know that my personal dislike of that fl is far far overshadowed by those who if forced to pick a single fl, as in a fixed fl cam to be used as a main rig, itd be 50 by a not close margin. next would probably be 35-40. i think a 28 would be a distant third in terms of numbers of people comfortable enough with it to use as their main squeeze. but at $4500 a pop, they dont have to sell a lot of 'em!
 
Last edited:
luke i'm not sure 'many' would use a fixed 28mm as their main rig. some, sure, maybe reportage, maybe landscape photogs. and as another tool in the kit, sure. but imo many many more wouldnt consider it their main cam than would, regardless of price. i think many more would consider a 35, and probably double that many more would consider a fixed 50 as main rigs. i know this is wholly subjective, but i have to believe the concept of a 'normal' fl was conceived for a reason, and 28 has i believe historically fallen outside the 'normal' fl parameter. now personally, i dont like the normal of normal, 50mm. but i know that my personal dislike of that fl is far far overshadowed by those who if forced to pick a single fl, as in a fixed fl cam to be used as a main rig, itd be 50 by a not close margin. next would probably be 35-40. i think a 28 would be a distant third in terms of numbers of people comfortable enough with it to use as their main squeeze. but at $4500 a pop, they dont have to sell a lot of 'em!
I pretty much agree with your take on this, but it's surprising then that practically nobody is making a 50mm fixed lens camera. Sigma comes closest with the DPM2, but everyone else is doing 35mm and now there are a few at 28mm as well. They probably know more about the market than we do, but I find it surprising nonetheless. Works best for me at 28mm, but I don't think I'm at all typical in that respect...

-Ray
 
I think that increasingly we may see 28mm as a "new normal". Not that it isn't a touch too wide for most.......but there are now enough megapickles that each frame can be 28, 35 OR 50. I don't do the fancy maths, but I remember when Olympus said that they would never see the need to go past 6MP (or maybe it was 8 or 9). At the time I felt that was accurate. So now that we have 24MP sensors as the norm.....is a crop of a 28mm shot to a 50mm FOV still give you a a 6 or 8 MP image?
 
Back
Top