Official Talk Leica thread

Just updated the Q to Version 2.0 firmware. Watch out for the resetting of the file numbers. Great update by the way.
 
I was doing some 60 second long exposures over the weekend with my M-240 and, when in bright sunshine, I ran into the light leak issue. I've found some other reports of the same thing.

I've written up the detail here, along with a couple of nice examples and how to avoid it.

As with other cameras, if you're doing long exposures in bright sunshine, it's best to cover the camera up & just leave a hole for the lens. Now you know...

20160814-ATL04339-1024x684.jpg
 
rich_ said:
Hi Ruffmeister,

I wanted to take it to Leica predominantly due also to the shakey lens. I typically only use the combo together so presumed if the lens was to be sent away, then they may as well check out the camera and remove any dusty bits in the vf etc! I hadn't had it checked out since I bought a few years back grey imported, whilst living in Asia and it's been banged around a fair bit on my travels. They didn't offer to touch the camera in the leica store, rather they stated that they send most things to Germany (Specifically referencing my rangefinder calibration)- In future tho once it's come back i'd happily take it to reddotcameras (If only it was nearer my office)..

Cheers.
Click to expand...
My camera arrived back on the 18th! Very happy with the results. The lens is better than it's every been! I also bought an old Elmar 50mm 2.8 to celebrate. Happy birthday to me :D
 
With a heavy heart I have sold my Q, I picked up a Fuji X-Pro 2 and just haven't been using the Q enough to justify keeping it. I only lost about 10% of what I paid so I don't regret it as I did enjoy using it.

If anyone else is still weighing one up then here are my main Pros/Cons (this was before the new firmware)

+ Fantastic handling (with the grip), it just makes you want to take photos and just feels right
+ Image quality is very good, for me it wasn't quite as good as my RX1 but that's subjective and there's certainly not much to quibble about
+ Autofocus was fantastic, this was a huge win compared to the RX1, C-AF wasn't as great but S-AF was awesome (m43 levels of speed)
+ Viewfinder was lovely
+ Manual focus was delicious, so smooth to use despite not being mechanical
+ Macro mode is handy and puts a smile on your face whenever you toggle it

- Cost (factor in the grip as well)
- Really should be weathersealed for this price\
- The lack of customisation annoyed me, buttons had very limited options
- Storing/using custom settings was a pain
- Lack of a built-in flash was inconvenient, I missed that more than I expected
- Banding when images were pushed, really quite bad at times and the curved nature of the bands reminds you just how much the images are corrected in-camera
- JPG files are pretty average, miles behind Fuji (RAW files were great)

+/- Fixed lens so you can't access the rest of the Leica ecosystem but your wallet might appreciate that
 
Sad times Rich,
I bought mine recently and your negatives are fair although i don't personally use a flash that often nor have hit the banding. Also have found the JPGs to be a bit underexposed and flat, but I typically shoot it in RAW. It's definitely a generation ahead of my M240 with regards to ISO, speed of operation and image output.

At least you got to enjoy it and didn't lose much cash. A good result! Enjoy the Fuji!!
 
Hi all, I've just joined Talk Photography having discovered a Leica section to the Forum.
I have a range of lenses mostly Voigtlander or Zeiss although I do treasure my 90mm Elmarit -M. I now want a better and faster 35mm and am considering the Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 T ZM, not wishing to pay twice that price for the Leica. Does anyone have experience of the Zeiss?
 
Clactonian said:
Hi all, I've just joined Talk Photography having discovered a Leica section to the Forum.
I have a range of lenses mostly Voigtlander or Zeiss although I do treasure my 90mm Elmarit -M. I now want a better and faster 35mm and am considering the Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 T ZM, not wishing to pay twice that price for the Leica. Does anyone have experience of the Zeiss?
Click to expand...

I used a Zeiss 35 on an M9 and found it was good, although I have read the Zeiss are optimized for film and not digital. The Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 Mk II gets good ratings as well and comes in about half the price of the Zeiss.
 
I have a Nokton 35mm 1.2 mk2 which i enjoy a great deal. It's similar to the Zeiss, a little faster but arguably not as sharp at 1.4, 1.2 is very dreamy. Not as bluey output as the zeiss, but less orangey than the Summilux. No focus shift and pretty good distortion! I preferred i to a fast 50 as I could handhold at slower speeds, whilst also benefiting from the super fast aperture!

I used it solidly for 18 months until I purchased a Summilux Asph.
I'll put my copy up in the for sale forum this wk/end and will let this thread know when i do!
 
After many years I've finally achieved my much-lusted-after Leica combo of an M, 24 Summilux, 50 Summilux and 90 Summicron. Bit by bit, lens by lens I got there in the end. Here's some Leica porn for you...

30053910692_cc54c7053a_c.jpg


Re @Clactonian's request for info on Zeiss lenses, I had a 50 Planar which was superb I'm sure the 35 1.4 is just as good. You might want to plump for a Leica Summicron instead of the Summilux which would save you quite a bit of cash.
 
Tobers said:
30053910692_cc54c7053a_c.jpg


I had a 50 Planar which was superb I'm sure the 35 1.4 is just as good. You might want to plump for a Leica Summicron instead of the Summilux which would save you quite a bit of cash.
Click to expand...

I have looked at a used Summicron as well as the Summarit but I take quite a few architectural shots and the Ziess 1.4/35 is reputed to have minimal distortion in comparison to those two. I have read that the CV 1.2/35 also has some distortion but maybe someone can put me right on that because its rendering looks good and not too clinical.
 
My existing single coated CV 1.4/35 performs pretty well on the M240 but has its limitations ...

L1010250.jpg
 
Last edited:
Decided to take the plunge and ordered the Zeiss 1.4/35. I've got to patient though as it is on back order. Watch this space!
 
Agreed many really excellent pics in your set.

Did you have to do a lot of PP? Are some of them HDR?
 
desf said:
Agreed many really excellent pics in your set.

Did you have to do a lot of PP? Are some of them HDR?
Click to expand...


Hiya,

Cheers for the comments.

I didn't have to do a lot of PP - though I have desaturated and added clarity to some (which tends to be my style), and others have had vignettes added to emphaise focus on the subject (again, something that i tend to do a lot).

None are HDR. Just great colours nicely represented by the sensor. :)

The night time harbour shots were all taken using a Manfrotto mini tripod for 1-5 seconds depending on the shot.

The colours were just like that when looking at the scene. Fab place to visit.

Ta,
Shane.
 
Last edited:
SlimShaney said:
I didn't have to do a lot of PP - though I have desaturated and added clarity to some (which tends to be my style), and others have had vignettes added to emphaise focus on the subject (again, something that i tend to do a lot).

None are HDR. Just great colours nicely represented by the sensor. :)
.
Click to expand...

That's great. There's a real 3D look to many of them. Fantastic.
I wondered about the restaurant shot being HDR as there is so much detail, even in the shadow areas.

Amazing places, I was there in 1988 and it still looks familiar enough.
 
@SlimShaney I have to say your pictures on this last page with the Leica Q are absolutely fantastic! As above too many to comment on but I really enjoyed looking through them all. I am looking for a camera such as a Q, but sadly my budget doesn't stretch that far. Do you have any other suggestions for me to look at?
 
antc said:
@SlimShaney I have to say your pictures on this last page with the Leica Q are absolutely fantastic! As above too many to comment on but I really enjoyed looking through them all. I am looking for a camera such as a Q, but sadly my budget doesn't stretch that far. Do you have any other suggestions for me to look at?
Click to expand...

If you can live with average AF and typical Sony handling/menus then the Sony RX1 offers stunning image quality.

Otherwise the obvious option is the Fuji X100T which gives you 80-90% of the Q at 20-30% of the cost.

(I have owned the Q, RX1 and X100/S/T)
 
I had the RX1R,

AF was frustratingly slow/poor, and you could not zone focus easily - no markings and resets to focus at infinity when coming back from standby, which you'd probably want to use as the battery life isn't great.

Love the quality though, everything here taken with RX1R
https://www.flickr.com/gp/62198876@N02/9xK9p4

I so much love my Leica Q, that I made a blog for it before I even received it :D
https://leicaqstreet.wordpress.com/

also started a Leica Q Photography group on FB
https://www.facebook.com/groups/743947725737190/
 
ricky1981 said:
If you can live with average AF and typical Sony handling/menus then the Sony RX1 offers stunning image quality.

Otherwise the obvious option is the Fuji X100T which gives you 80-90% of the Q at 20-30% of the cost.

(I have owned the Q, RX1 and X100/S/T)
Click to expand...

Thanks @ricky1981. After reading @dancook comments on the rx1 it wouldn't be for me, slow af and no zone focus, I would become frustrated, even though the IQ looks fantastic.

I guess the x100t really is the only other option? I am surprised more manufacturers aren't bring out a full frame compact such at the rx1, Q etc.......sounds like there is a market for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top