I got a Q about thirty days ago. I am a professional landscape and documentary photographer, and besides my tripod queen (a Fuji GFX system) I carry a camera in my purse. The Q is the upgrade for a lovely Fuji X-100f, which I will still keep, but can't stand the comparison. The sharpness, the delicacy of the color interpretation, the bokehs... this camera is well beyond my expectations and worth every penny spent.
Well put and thanks for the comment. Hard to compare the X100F but it's one of the few comparisons out there beside the Sony RX1R. The Q went beyond my expectations too. CHeers
Best 28mm ff camera for street photography , beautiful colors tone /iq , fantastic monochrom night shots . Never let me down and will stay with me for ever .
It really is an amazing camera and now is a great time to buy. The Q2 is awesome as well but for the money, the Q is still amazing and will be for a long time to come. Cheers
I'm a Sony A7RIII studio shooter and got my Leica Q about 6-7 months ago for a vacation where I wanted a small portable camera that had decent quality and optics. I thought I could just stop there but lately I've been trying to rationalize how I could get a M7 and M10. I just love the portability of these cameras and so much fun to use.
Ha, you got bit by the Leica bug too. So much of the experience can be how it feel to use the camera and of course the files. I see an M10 and M7 in your future...
@@AdamLernerPhoto Hah, yeah idk what happened but now I'm here sitting with a Leica M3! Hahahah. I guess M10 is later this year more towards the end lol. Happy shooting!
People keep saying that the camera is overpriced and I used to think that, but in 10 yrs, their cameras have more value than younger models from other companies. They hold their value in the long run vs Sony. For instance, the Sony RX1R2 might be $1,800 less than the Q2, but in 5 yrs, bet the Q2 will have more value than the Sony.
Have had one since 2016 it is the camera I have been looking for all of my life - I don’t need to change lenses but I can easily control shutter speed and aperture without moving the camera from my eye. It’s insane at higher ISO. Ok it doesn’t fit in my pocket but it fits in my clunky hands perfectly and almost says to me “ what are we going to shoot today Paul”. I have an M10 and S-E but the Q is always in the bag first
Adam, absolutely! Your thoughts and quick “snaps” with the Q show that the art of superb opto/mechanical engineering can certainly translate into photographic art and feeling. The gate’s open! Thanks!
Hello! Nice shots! But how do you take that portrait shot with 1/1000 shutter , while you have an F stop of 1.7 and ISO 100? Do I need an ND filter for that? Thanks...
@@petruskap It was probably later in the afternoon and overcast. 100 ISO is pretty restrictive so 1/1000 is totally achievable shooting wide open. Thanks!
I love my Q, it really is a fantastic camera! Yes f1.7 is beautiful but I was hoping you would show some shots from f8 - the colour, sharpness and contrast is sensational at this aperture. 28mm is just so creative from portrait to architecture.
and they keep just making the "Special Editions" meaning they cannot make it any better SPEC wise without calling it another name like the Leica Q2, if they did I'd want it to be for LANDSCAPE photography.... maybe 18mm f 1.2 to F 22....OR make the LENS NOT MACRO / 28 but 18mm and then dial to 28mm.... Who can we ask if this is technically possible? @@@AdamLernerPhoto
Well, if this GEM was affordable for all then it be "Just another" Canon or Nikon....It's Quality over quantity, Ease of use, the REAL DIALS not all electronic....fly by wire...Aesthetically Perfect in dimensions, weight, maybe the thumb divet vs, thumb grip, well buy the grip then....for those who are negative....don't purchase and don't call us fanboys....I don't rain on your Parade! Those who complain about the PRICE don't Drive Mercedes either....but complain that they are also "over-priced" @@AdamLernerPhoto
You’re so right. I loved my Q as soon as I got it, but I’ve fallen through the gateway and got hold of another Leica, too: the CL with the 18 mm TL lens, but also acquired a 35 mm TL lens, too. I really enjoy them both, and I would agree with all you say in this video. Very helpful.
Thanks Peter and the CL with the 18 and 35 is an exceptional kit. So small and so versatile. The CL is a totally underrated camera. The image quality from that system is excellent, especially paired with those beautiful lenses.
Imma go for it, i saw many reviews of this leica Q, but this one is the best. Selling my Nikon D4s and will be looking for a second hand. Sadly i can't afford the Q2, but to be honest... i no need 4k video and don't need 47.3 megapixel, i don't crop, i go closer to what i want to shot 😂. And i gave a try to the sony rx1... the menu drove me crazy!
Thank you. The Q is a quirky camera. And it’s amazing but also limited. 28mm is an odd focal length. I’d much rather it be a 35/2. Going from a D4s will be a huge change. But it could be nice depending on what you shoot.
Adam Lerner well i'm not shotting for $... anymore. I have 2 young kids, it's not always easy to carry a D4s around, i thought i'd be happy with the sony rx1, but no. Menu is so weird and it's too small for my big hands. I am happy with the 28mm tbh. Can't wait to try it!
I have a Q and checked to upgrade. I personally do not need more MP. The advantage of Q 1 is less noise on high ISO. With the Q 2 the larger MP, weather sealing and crop. I am never cropping though. It is otherwise pretty much the same and the key is really the lens and the colors. My Q has been in Congo, the Amazonas and the Andes and I never had a weather issue. The Q 2 was not worth the upgrade and the money for me as the Q is still a great camera. My advise is to get a used Q 1. I just saw one in mint condition for 2'500. As for me, I got the virus and bought an almost as new SL 1 : )
@@midas1929 some are saying that Q produces a more analog image quality like film while the Q2 looked more digitized. Maybe i will find a used Q-P....lol
Great way to put it. And you know what, it worked out that way for me too. I've also put it up against my Sony a7rii and Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 and in every way I always prefer my Q.
Nice review! I buyed a used Q-P about 2 months ago. For me personally it finally closed the door. I feel no need to buy any other type of camera anymore. :)
Your next cam should be either the Leica SL, or the M10 or M10 P. I sold my two 1dx ii bodies and 11 canon L series lenses and got the SL body with 5 native lenses and i couldn't be happier. Leica glass is legendary.
there are now "affordable" second hand cameras, I found one for $2300, in perfect condition, thanks Q2 and Q monochrome :-), it's still a lot of money, but really the right time to set foot at Leica
Great video. I have a Sony a7iii and I’m wondering is it worth investing £2000 on this Leica Q or should I just buy 28mm lens for my Sony at much less?
Tough call. The A73 is a great all-around camera and has one of the best AF systems available. If you're willing to give up having interchangeable lenses and will be happy at 28mm, the Q is still a remarkable camera. It's basically an incredibly fast and sharp 28mm lens with a free, full-frame 24mpx camera that has a decent EVF, AF and even does Macro. Personally, I feel Leica's color science combined with that lens will give you the ability to capture stunning images. Good luck!
Great video. I absolutely love my Q. It's the perfect camera companion for me. Well worth it for anyone considering it. I've had fujifilm cameras also and those are fantastic but you can tell the difference as you said.
Adam Lerner I for sure, absolutely. - I probably won't add something soon though as the cost is so high. But I'd love to have something in the 50mm to complement the 28mm on the Q. That would be all I need.
You know, I like this video. I like the Q. But comming from a anoloque era, I still like to know and see what you DID with the picture. I strife to get the pictures almost ready when I shoot. eg the Church and the farm compared to the original (very bland, I might add) raw file. Without that, one could argue that you can do that with almost any picture, right. Anyway, thanks for the time and effort on this video! But, again, I would love to see what you actually did with the pictures:-) Have a great one!
The church photo was the MOST edited of the lot. The others received only minor adjustments. I hear ya that it's just a camera, but overall it's sharper, has beautiful color and the bokeh is outstanding. Thanks
Oh, believe me: I agree! I got rid of all my gear just to get this one camera. HAHA! Never looked back since. But the work you did on those two foto's I mentioned, I just don't know what you did. It is my lack of editskills, I reckon:-) Thanks man
Great review, Adam. Was looking for more Q info, discovered your site this morning and have so far watched this review twice, plus both of your two GFX reviews. All very helpful and well done. Was wondering if you could comment on the Q’s viewfinder. Though everyone raves about it, I can’t find any info at all as to what the actual eye point/eye relief is. Do you, by chance, wear your glasses when shooting? If so, could you please compare the view through the Q with the X100F’s? If you don’t wear your glasses shooting, could you at least relate your user viewfinder experience with each camera? I have an X100F, and with my thick glasses, I find I have to look around a bit to check the edges when using the EVF. I’m floored by the Q, at least everything I’ve seen or read about it, and am thinking, hoping, that it might be a great upgrade to the Fuji. Thanks for your help. I just subscribed and am looking forward to more of your videos. Cheers!
Adam, thanks for your video. I shoot Leica 35/50/90mm on a A7 II. The results always blow me away. On a M Body it gets even more crazy. Already the DNGs. 28mm I shoot on a Fuji X70. Four reasons: It´s smaller, it has a tilting screen which is good for low angle shots (and sometimes even selfies), you can screw on a 21mm converter and I bought it used for 500€. Against this advantages I was willing to sacrifice image quality. Also I get very good results with the X70, also when shooting with f2. If the Q had a tilting screen (low on the ground is very often my shooting style) I would be very tempted. The Leica Store Munich lent me a M10 with a 35mm f1.4 ASPH FLE for a afternoon. I just can warn you. Testing Leica can have very expensive consequences ... (-; The only thing , I decided for a A7 II as body. The EVF is much easier to focus, especially with 50 and 90 mm, no lense in the viewfinder and also tilting screen for some situations. Plus, bought used, saved me over 4.000€ to a USED M10 body. And you now why I was going to the Leica store in the first place? I wanted to have a look at a Q.... (-;
That's pretty cool using the Leica glass on a SONY body. The lenses are really special. And if you ever decide to buy or rent a Leica body, you're already way ahead of the game. Thanks for sharing your setup!
I wait till the M10 Bodies used will be around the price what you pay now for a M240 (approx. 3.000€). I think at one point you have to have one. It´s simply in terms of IQ the best combination, even if it won´t be your main Leica body. Meanwhile I´m shooting 50% with these glasses tendency growing. And with the EVF of a A7 II (I´m awaiting now the Panasonic S1 with approx. 4 Mio. dots EVF) you miss less shots. Manual focus open shot demands concentration enough...
‘Gateway camera’ Haha you’re totally right! I’ve had my Q for over a year now and I’m now seriously wanting to explore more Leica lenses :) I’ll be honest though, I found the 28mm pretty tough to shoot with at first, close up was fine but wide shots you really have to work hard creating good compositions. But I actually think its made me a better photographer, I’ve really improved in the past 6 months. I kind of also like I’m restricted to using one fixed lens and I’m findings ways to make the very best of it. Also stops me falling into buying more lenses... for now :) If you want to see my progress with the Q check my IG @madedigital (not looking for followers)
A 50mm f/1.4 version of the Q would be amazing but probably insanely expensive. 28 is a bit wide for my taste too which is why I could see progressing to another Leica system.
Steve Q2 thank you so much for your kind reply. My website is www.sherifaliportfolio.com All Italy page is made with Leica Q. Some of Dubai page (water hose, Burj Khalifa, Business Bay, Bab El-Shams, Dubai Mall Fountain & Grass) and all B&W page except Hatta Reservoir picture. Regards Sherif
I understand. Photography is such a complex thing. There's the technical ability. There's the usability/fun factor. There's personal preference.... and ultimately there's cost performance, which may vary for individuals. For me, I understand the love for Leica glass. It's amazing. It has a certain "je ne sais quoi". Zeiss is pretty damn close. In some areas (like micro-contrast) it exceeds Leica, but Leica colour is better. ... yet all of that is top end, splitting hairs between 98% and 97% performance. Then you get the lens guys like "Voigtlander", who, lets face it is just "Cosina" and who make Zeiss lens for them and then learn and make their own cheaper versions. These guys are great too. Then you have the big and bigger guys. Fuji, out of the (relative) large scale guys are doing great. Their glass also has "je ne sais quoi", so do their cameras. Glass almost equal to a Leica/Zeiss, and camera alomost equal to technical perfection as Sony sensors.... but packaged together they get you there 90% of the time. Nikon in the old days did amazing glass. Some modern Canon glass is great too. Sony glass, while technically good lacks "je ne sais quoi", and has far too much sample variety and imperfection. So, what a, I trying to say.... (after a few drinks this evening here, over in the Land of the Rising Sun where I now reside). - If money was no object, I'd buy a Fujifilm GFX and complete set of native GFX lenses, and some adapted legacy glass. That would be portrait, studio, time is no object shooter. I'd then get the Leica Q as my secondary replaceable camera. This would be daily carry. My fun, shoot what I see every day camera. - If money was a little tighter (but kinda available), and this is what I'm seriously considering right now..... GFX as my main shooter, with a Fuji X100F or a Fuji X-E3+Zeiss wide angle mount adapted. - If money is tighter again... get the best APS-C or Full frame camera, with GOOD usability (which means Sony is still struggling for, but improving) and spend a s**tload of money on excellent manual focus Leica/Zeiss/Vogitlander/... glass. Canon and Nikon are not doing it for me. Their older glass may be great, but the technical advantage over Fujifilm APS-C, or their advantages over a fixed-lens Q is not enough compared to the subtle image quality PLUS shooting experience. Man, rambling post.... in the end. Do want you want to do. I'll do what I want to do. We know when to separate the subjective from the objective, and when to balance the subjective/objective balance... and understand when another person has different subjective/objective balances. Peace, out (:thumbs up:)
Over here in Japan, my regular camera store which I use for part-exchanging and getting new gear (yeah, I have G.A.S) .... has a GFX50S second on sale. Price is basically the same as a new GFX50R. Generally speaking, the 50R form factor appeals to me in terms of street-shooting ability. Obviously, its cheaper and it'd be a new camera. But, the downside is I'm a left-eye dominant shooter. SLR format suits me better. Also, the viewfinder has high magnification (resolution is the same, it's just the glass in front of the EVF....) So, my plan is to go to the FujiFilm Plaza in Roppongi, Tokyo... have a play with a GFX50R and compare with a 50S. ..... and we'll take it from there.
Prices on used GFX 50S have come down to that point in the USA too. The S is more versatile with the more articulate screen and OVF, however the guts of the two are virtually the same so you can’t go wrong with either. I personally I prefer the form factor of the R.
28 mm Summilux f/1.4 for the Leica M is $6,595. That's lens and body for almost $15K. Even with the inevitable compromises (f/1.4 vs f/1.7 in the Q for example) at $4,495 it is a great value. When was the last time anyone said that about a Leica? I think you may have borrowed "gateway camera" from Thorsten Overgaard, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate. :-)
I heard the Q does not shoot at 1.7 when you are close, even if that is set on the lens, it will go to 2.8 instead. So, were the close 1.7 images really 1.7 or did it go to 2.8. Steve Huff references this in his video comparing the Q to the Sony.
I am not sure when the F-stop would begin to become 2.8 so I have no idea how close in you have to be for it to change so as far as shooting "that close" I can't say since it is undefined by you and not mentioned by Mr. Huff at what point it changes. If it is for macro only then that is no big deal but I mentioned it because I heard nothing about it in this video and since it is a NEW video I figured maybe the guy who shot it would have some information or one of the viewers might know. Also he shot some things fairly close it seemed to me and discussed the sharpness wide-open at 1.7 only. SO when does 1.7 become 2.8 ? Is it only in the macro settings and at what distance does that kick in? Or is the report by Mr. Huff erroneous relative to the change to 2.8?
Leica lenses absolutely do live up to the hype. These stunning images strongly remind me of...now don’t laugh...my Sigma SD Quattro. That’s a seriously, (though understandably) underrated system. Funny you should bring up the X100. My satchel camera is a 2011 Limited Edition X100. So outdated now but gets great images IF you stay on top of your exposure triangle. It’s like a permanent learning experience, and so much less to worry about in case of an unexpected camera disaster 😁. Still, I’d love to get my hands on the Q. Who wouldn’t?
I loved my original X100. There was litereally nothing like it. It was odd and quirky and slow, but when you nailed it, the photos looked great and overtime they updated firmware for faster/more reliable focus. It was when I upgraded to the X100F that I really noticed how soft the files are at f/2. It's still a remarkable camera, but the Leica Q is so much better. Tack sharp, gorgeous color and bokeh and incredibly fast focusing.
Adam Lerner It’s still the same lens in the X100F, right? f2 is almost unusable! Anyway, I’d be interested to see more Leica stuff on your show. L mount cometh...
Having seen lots of photos from Q2 and after editing many DNGs from it, I strongly believe that the images of the Q have a much more organic film like feeling. Q2 colours are too digital for my taste. I will not replace mine with a Q2 anytime soon..
@@ironsienna that's a good point. Having such a high level of rendering with that upgraded sensor will definitely change the look and feel. I love my Q and see no reason to upgrade either.
See,I knew at least one person was going to cry about the price.If that's you,the Leica brand is not for you,over your head,not your personal taste.Point being,if that's the case,there's no logical point in even looking at one.That's like wanting to drive 200 MPH on the weekends,yet shopping at a used Yugo dealer.There's no debate,it's just not for that person.Evidently,this is going to happen in just about every single review,especially about niche products,and some folks cannot mentally process ONE thing at a time,so they have to compare,no matter what. I understand the Leica mindset,because I have gear for my skating,DJing/studio work,and IT gear,that's way outside the range of the standard stuff.People will keep saying how much they can get things for,just like i know I would not buy $300 sneakers,yet i have the common sense and maturity not to make a big issue about it,unless that person is homeless and hungry with $300 sneakers on,asking people for money.Would get a Leica Q2..YES...Is it a great value?YES,for me,because I street shoot my ass off....Great review,and those images,wow..............
Using Q is pure joy, handling, image quality etc are excellent.Though in terms of IQ Nikon A and Ricoh GR are able to provide 90 percent of what Q can provide. The only difference in IQ is the ability to shoot at f1.7. If it worths to pay the premium for this is very personal matter. Also the 35mm Zeiss on the RX1 is more capable than Leica's in many areas, plus the sensor is better. It does'nt handle as well as Q or gives as much pleasure while shooting (Mark II is better with EVF, fast enough AF and flexible LCD) but the end results are just amazing at 1/5th of the price. For me X100f is just a meh camera with no specialty, I'd rather have 23mm f1.4 with a cheap x body.
@@yew108 I think the Zeiss on Sony is fantastic, bokeh is much smoother, there is 3D pop and MF look. They are both extremely sharp wide open It is slightly wider than 35mm so that is a good thing too. Sensor is still in the top even for the first generation rx1. As for colors both have problems but I shoot raw.
it's only a Sony sensor, and the body has parts made in China bla bla.....all until the day you start shooting with this and you never want to give it away.
agreed. both great cameras and value for money but hard to compare because the 100V has phase detect AF and a flip screen, weather proofing (with adapter) and many more updated features. Still the Leica Q color with that 28mm Summilux is hard to beat.
A Nikon D750 with the Voigtlaender 28mm f2.8 Color Skopar produces better pictures, and costs 3 times less than the Leica Q. You Leica people really think there's nothing better out there, lol.
Might be a culture difference, in my country this if highly illegal as many people lose their lives taking photos on rails@@AdamLernerPhoto. But nice points on the leica
Could you please make sure you pronouce Bokeh correctly. A lot of people (especially Americans) now starting to pounce the A sound without seeing any A in the word (even in Apple's TV commercials). It's BOH-Kay with a short ending sound. In the late 90s when the word appeared in American books. Some people pronounced it Boke-Uh which is a slight different than the original Japanese pronunciation from the word Boke (暈け or ボケ) that means "blur" or "haze". This is not the Tomahto/Tomaeto thing. You are a good influencer and I just want your content to correctly educate viewers. Here's the correct way to pronounce it (toward the end of the video) ruclips.net/video/Y0Brf2l8Ysc/видео.html
Over here in 'Merica, folks pronounce it as bo-keh not bo-kay, just like we say Ny-kon, not Nee-kon. Not sure what could change that, but thanks for your input!
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
I got a Q about thirty days ago. I am a professional landscape and documentary photographer, and besides my tripod queen (a Fuji GFX system) I carry a camera in my purse. The Q is the upgrade for a lovely Fuji X-100f, which I will still keep, but can't stand the comparison. The sharpness, the delicacy of the color interpretation, the bokehs... this camera is well beyond my expectations and worth every penny spent.
Well put and thanks for the comment. Hard to compare the X100F but it's one of the few comparisons out there beside the Sony RX1R. The Q went beyond my expectations too. CHeers
Best 28mm ff camera for street photography , beautiful colors tone /iq , fantastic monochrom night shots . Never let me down and will stay with me for ever .
It really is an amazing camera and now is a great time to buy. The Q2 is awesome as well but for the money, the Q is still amazing and will be for a long time to come. Cheers
I'm a Sony A7RIII studio shooter and got my Leica Q about 6-7 months ago for a vacation where I wanted a small portable camera that had decent quality and optics. I thought I could just stop there but lately I've been trying to rationalize how I could get a M7 and M10. I just love the portability of these cameras and so much fun to use.
Ha, you got bit by the Leica bug too. So much of the experience can be how it feel to use the camera and of course the files. I see an M10 and M7 in your future...
@@AdamLernerPhoto Hah, yeah idk what happened but now I'm here sitting with a Leica M3! Hahahah. I guess M10 is later this year more towards the end lol. Happy shooting!
I have one and it is absolutely the best! No comparison even straight out of camera. The monochrome renditions is superb! Well worth the investment.
Nice!
I rented one last night and wow your opening statement is the most truthful string of words i've heard this year lol
Sweet, thanks and glad you enjoyed it!
People keep saying that the camera is overpriced and I used to think that, but in 10 yrs, their cameras have more value than younger models from other companies. They hold their value in the long run vs Sony. For instance, the Sony RX1R2 might be $1,800 less than the Q2, but in 5 yrs, bet the Q2 will have more value than the Sony.
Have had one since 2016 it is the camera I have been looking for all of my life - I don’t need to change lenses but I can easily control shutter speed and aperture without moving the camera from my eye. It’s insane at higher ISO. Ok it doesn’t fit in my pocket but it fits in my clunky hands perfectly and almost says to me “ what are we going to shoot today Paul”. I have an M10 and S-E but the Q is always in the bag first
Nice! I’d like to get my hands on an SL
Adam, absolutely! Your thoughts and quick “snaps” with the Q show that the art of superb opto/mechanical engineering can certainly translate into photographic art and feeling. The gate’s open! Thanks!
Thank you!
Hello! Nice shots! But how do you take that portrait shot with 1/1000 shutter , while you have an F stop of 1.7 and ISO 100? Do I need an ND filter for that? Thanks...
What time is that? When you take that shot ....
@@petruskap It was probably later in the afternoon and overcast. 100 ISO is pretty restrictive so 1/1000 is totally achievable shooting wide open. Thanks!
Absolutely agree. I’ve owned several Leica cameras and the Q has been my favorite digital camera ever. The M3 my favorite film camera.
Nice I love my M3 even though it’s a tank!
I love my Q, it really is a fantastic camera! Yes f1.7 is beautiful but I was hoping you would show some shots from f8 - the colour, sharpness and contrast is sensational at this aperture. 28mm is just so creative from portrait to architecture.
Bit late to the party but that car in the barn is a Chevrolet Corvair. Rear engine 2 door Coupe.
Indeed it is! my mom had one back in the 60's!
Adam Lerner not sure what their value is today but very European for the muscle car era.
Couldn't agree more. The Q has been around for awhile, but it is still at the top of the heap!
And Leica is typically slow on their refresh cycle however apart from more features the Q still stands on its own.
Agreed!
and they keep just making the "Special Editions" meaning they cannot make it any better SPEC wise without calling it another name like the Leica Q2, if they did I'd want it to be for LANDSCAPE photography.... maybe 18mm f 1.2 to F 22....OR make the LENS NOT MACRO / 28 but 18mm and then dial to 28mm.... Who can we ask if this is technically possible? @@@AdamLernerPhoto
Its a gateway to spending shite-loads of money! :) I went from a Q to a M10! I love the simplicity tied in with the quality.
Ha! It's inevitable for anyone with a Q!
the leica q is an amazing camera and it is so underrated
sadly leica prices are way to high
thanks for sharing this with us! really enjoyed this
The price scares away a lot of people. I was one of them until I got the Q.
Well, if this GEM was affordable for all then it be "Just another" Canon or Nikon....It's Quality over quantity, Ease of use, the REAL DIALS not all electronic....fly by wire...Aesthetically Perfect in dimensions, weight, maybe the thumb divet vs, thumb grip, well buy the grip then....for those who are negative....don't purchase and don't call us fanboys....I don't rain on your Parade! Those who complain about the PRICE don't Drive Mercedes either....but complain that they are also "over-priced" @@AdamLernerPhoto
You’re so right. I loved my Q as soon as I got it, but I’ve fallen through the gateway and got hold of another Leica, too: the CL with the 18 mm TL lens, but also acquired a 35 mm TL lens, too. I really enjoy them both, and I would agree with all you say in this video. Very helpful.
Thanks Peter and the CL with the 18 and 35 is an exceptional kit. So small and so versatile. The CL is a totally underrated camera. The image quality from that system is excellent, especially paired with those beautiful lenses.
Imma go for it, i saw many reviews of this leica Q, but this one is the best. Selling my Nikon D4s and will be looking for a second hand. Sadly i can't afford the Q2, but to be honest... i no need 4k video and don't need 47.3 megapixel, i don't crop, i go closer to what i want to shot 😂. And i gave a try to the sony rx1... the menu drove me crazy!
Thank you. The Q is a quirky camera. And it’s amazing but also limited. 28mm is an odd focal length. I’d much rather it be a 35/2. Going from a D4s will be a huge change. But it could be nice depending on what you shoot.
Adam Lerner well i'm not shotting for $... anymore. I have 2 young kids, it's not always easy to carry a D4s around, i thought i'd be happy with the sony rx1, but no. Menu is so weird and it's too small for my big hands. I am happy with the 28mm tbh. Can't wait to try it!
Do you like the Q or Q2? Some say the Q is better than the newer Q2
I have a Q and checked to upgrade. I personally do not need more MP. The advantage of Q 1 is less noise on high ISO. With the Q 2 the larger MP, weather sealing and crop. I am never cropping though. It is otherwise pretty much the same and the key is really the lens and the colors. My Q has been in Congo, the Amazonas and the Andes and I never had a weather issue. The Q 2 was not worth the upgrade and the money for me as the Q is still a great camera. My advise is to get a used Q 1. I just saw one in mint condition for 2'500. As for me, I got the virus and bought an almost as new SL 1 : )
@@midas1929 some are saying that Q produces a more analog image quality like film while the Q2 looked more digitized. Maybe i will find a used Q-P....lol
Got a new old stock Q-P. I’m in heaven.
Great way to put it. And you know what, it worked out that way for me too. I've also put it up against my Sony a7rii and Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 and in every way I always prefer my Q.
Nice! That Sony combo sounds like a winner too!
Nice review! I buyed a used Q-P about 2 months ago. For me personally it finally closed the door. I feel no need to buy any other type of camera anymore. :)
Good choice!
Your next cam should be either the Leica SL, or the M10 or M10 P. I sold my two 1dx ii bodies and 11 canon L series lenses and got the SL body with 5 native lenses and i couldn't be happier. Leica glass is legendary.
Sounds pretty sweet and something like that may happen.
there are now "affordable" second hand cameras, I found one for $2300, in perfect condition, thanks Q2 and Q monochrome :-), it's still a lot of money, but really the right time to set foot at Leica
Congrats Alain. It's still a GREAT camera and probably will be for a long time. Enjoy!
Just got a NOS Q-P. Wow what a camera.
my super rich friend just got this as his FIRST CAMERA.
Lol did not know you had to be super rich to buy a Leica Q.
Great video. I have a Sony a7iii and I’m wondering is it worth investing £2000 on this Leica Q or should I just buy 28mm lens for my Sony at much less?
Tough call. The A73 is a great all-around camera and has one of the best AF systems available. If you're willing to give up having interchangeable lenses and will be happy at 28mm, the Q is still a remarkable camera. It's basically an incredibly fast and sharp 28mm lens with a free, full-frame 24mpx camera that has a decent EVF, AF and even does Macro. Personally, I feel Leica's color science combined with that lens will give you the ability to capture stunning images. Good luck!
Great video. I absolutely love my Q. It's the perfect camera companion for me. Well worth it for anyone considering it. I've had fujifilm cameras also and those are fantastic but you can tell the difference as you said.
Did you find that the Q opened the door to more Leica gear for you?
Adam Lerner I for sure, absolutely. - I probably won't add something soon though as the cost is so high. But I'd love to have something in the 50mm to complement the 28mm on the Q. That would be all I need.
yes, a 50mm f/1.4 version would be amazing but likely crazy expensive. I'd be interested in a teleconverter
Hi Adam, thank yo for sharing this video. Do you know how big can you print with this camera?
As big as you like. It's a 24mpx sensor.
Yup. It’s a gateway selling organs for camera gear. 😂
dvdragon well, i'll try to sell my nikon D4s with some primes lense first 😂
You have two kidneys. You only need one. Do it.
Thank you very much for this nice review. The images are great !
Thank you very much!
Just sold my Nikon D810 and some lenses to get the Q. I think I did the right thing!
Enjoy it! Totally different animal than a D810 and lenses, but still Full Frame and an amazing lens.
You know, I like this video. I like the Q. But comming from a anoloque era, I still like to know and see what you DID with the picture. I strife to get the pictures almost ready when I shoot. eg the Church and the farm compared to the original (very bland, I might add) raw file. Without that, one could argue that you can do that with almost any picture, right. Anyway, thanks for the time and effort on this video! But, again, I would love to see what you actually did with the pictures:-) Have a great one!
The church photo was the MOST edited of the lot. The others received only minor adjustments. I hear ya that it's just a camera, but overall it's sharper, has beautiful color and the bokeh is outstanding. Thanks
Oh, believe me: I agree! I got rid of all my gear just to get this one camera. HAHA! Never looked back since. But the work you did on those two foto's I mentioned, I just don't know what you did. It is my lack of editskills, I reckon:-)
Thanks man
Try the video function. It’s equally impressive. Photography wise after the Q, my 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 Nikon are sitting in the dry cabinet
Nice!
Super review on the Q! I am sold on it.
Nice! I've gotten to like the camera even more since I made this video!
Great review, Adam. Was looking for more Q info, discovered your site this morning and have so far watched this review twice, plus both of your two GFX reviews. All very helpful and well done.
Was wondering if you could comment on the Q’s viewfinder. Though everyone raves about it, I can’t find any info at all as to what the actual eye point/eye relief is. Do you, by chance, wear your glasses when shooting? If so, could you please compare the view through the Q with the X100F’s? If you don’t wear your glasses shooting, could you at least relate your user viewfinder experience with each camera? I have an X100F, and with my thick glasses, I find I have to look around a bit to check the edges when using the EVF. I’m floored by the Q, at least everything I’ve seen or read about it, and am thinking, hoping, that it might be a great upgrade to the Fuji.
Thanks for your help. I just subscribed and am looking forward to more of your videos. Cheers!
Thanks very much! The Q's viewfinder is spectacular. I don't wear glasses while shooting, however it is quite a bit better than the X100F.
Adam, thanks for your video. I shoot Leica 35/50/90mm on a A7 II. The results always blow me away. On a M Body it gets even more crazy. Already the DNGs. 28mm I shoot on a Fuji X70. Four reasons: It´s smaller, it has a tilting screen which is good for low angle shots (and sometimes even selfies), you can screw on a 21mm converter and I bought it used for 500€. Against this advantages I was willing to sacrifice image quality. Also I get very good results with the X70, also when shooting with f2. If the Q had a tilting screen (low on the ground is very often my shooting style) I would be very tempted. The Leica Store Munich lent me a M10 with a 35mm f1.4 ASPH FLE for a afternoon. I just can warn you. Testing Leica can have very expensive consequences ... (-; The only thing , I decided for a A7 II as body. The EVF is much easier to focus, especially with 50 and 90 mm, no lense in the viewfinder and also tilting screen for some situations. Plus, bought used, saved me over 4.000€ to a USED M10 body. And you now why I was going to the Leica store in the first place? I wanted to have a look at a Q.... (-;
That's pretty cool using the Leica glass on a SONY body. The lenses are really special. And if you ever decide to buy or rent a Leica body, you're already way ahead of the game. Thanks for sharing your setup!
I wait till the M10 Bodies used will be around the price what you pay now for a M240 (approx. 3.000€). I think at one point you have to have one. It´s simply in terms of IQ the best combination, even if it won´t be your main Leica body. Meanwhile I´m shooting 50% with these glasses tendency growing. And with the EVF of a A7 II (I´m awaiting now the Panasonic S1 with approx. 4 Mio. dots EVF) you miss less shots. Manual focus open shot demands concentration enough...
X70 can’t replace the Q. Been there done that hated it
Not a replacement. An alternative, since I have already three Leica lenses.
Just Bought my first Leica (Q) few days ago!
Congrats!
‘Gateway camera’ Haha you’re totally right! I’ve had my Q for over a year now and I’m now seriously wanting to explore more Leica lenses :) I’ll be honest though, I found the 28mm pretty tough to shoot with at first, close up was fine but wide shots you really have to work hard creating good compositions. But I actually think its made me a better photographer, I’ve really improved in the past 6 months. I kind of also like I’m restricted to using one fixed lens and I’m findings ways to make the very best of it. Also stops me falling into buying more lenses... for now :)
If you want to see my progress with the Q check my IG @madedigital (not looking for followers)
A 50mm f/1.4 version of the Q would be amazing but probably insanely expensive. 28 is a bit wide for my taste too which is why I could see progressing to another Leica system.
Adam Lerner there’s rumours of a Leica Q2 on the horizon. Wonder if they’ll do a 35 or 50? Wishful thinking I think.
The rumors have been around for a while. Nothing was mentioned at Photokina so I’d guess a Q2 isn’t happening at least this year.
Nice. How are the in-camera monochromes?
(Not post-processing conversions, which are nice as you showed us).
I only shot RAW so I didn’t try in-camera monochrome’s.
Adam Lerner OK, thanks. I like to see the monochrome view before I press the shutter.
You look a lot like Stanley Tucci. Great review!
Ha! I haven't heard that before, but thanks!
It is a perfect camera. I wish i can share with you some of my photos taken by this little beast.
SURE, why not, Do you have facebook or a Web-page ?
Steve Q2 thank you so much for your kind reply. My website is www.sherifaliportfolio.com All Italy page is made with Leica Q. Some of Dubai page (water hose, Burj Khalifa, Business Bay, Bab El-Shams, Dubai Mall Fountain & Grass) and all B&W page except Hatta Reservoir picture. Regards
Sherif
I understand. Photography is such a complex thing. There's the technical ability. There's the usability/fun factor. There's personal preference.... and ultimately there's cost performance, which may vary for individuals.
For me, I understand the love for Leica glass. It's amazing. It has a certain "je ne sais quoi". Zeiss is pretty damn close. In some areas (like micro-contrast) it exceeds Leica, but Leica colour is better. ... yet all of that is top end, splitting hairs between 98% and 97% performance.
Then you get the lens guys like "Voigtlander", who, lets face it is just "Cosina" and who make Zeiss lens for them and then learn and make their own cheaper versions. These guys are great too.
Then you have the big and bigger guys. Fuji, out of the (relative) large scale guys are doing great. Their glass also has "je ne sais quoi", so do their cameras. Glass almost equal to a Leica/Zeiss, and camera alomost equal to technical perfection as Sony sensors.... but packaged together they get you there 90% of the time.
Nikon in the old days did amazing glass. Some modern Canon glass is great too. Sony glass, while technically good lacks "je ne sais quoi", and has far too much sample variety and imperfection.
So, what a, I trying to say.... (after a few drinks this evening here, over in the Land of the Rising Sun where I now reside).
- If money was no object, I'd buy a Fujifilm GFX and complete set of native GFX lenses, and some adapted legacy glass. That would be portrait, studio, time is no object shooter. I'd then get the Leica Q as my secondary replaceable camera. This would be daily carry. My fun, shoot what I see every day camera.
- If money was a little tighter (but kinda available), and this is what I'm seriously considering right now..... GFX as my main shooter, with a Fuji X100F or a Fuji X-E3+Zeiss wide angle mount adapted.
- If money is tighter again... get the best APS-C or Full frame camera, with GOOD usability (which means Sony is still struggling for, but improving) and spend a s**tload of money on excellent manual focus Leica/Zeiss/Vogitlander/... glass.
Canon and Nikon are not doing it for me. Their older glass may be great, but the technical advantage over Fujifilm APS-C, or their advantages over a fixed-lens Q is not enough compared to the subtle image quality PLUS shooting experience.
Man, rambling post.... in the end. Do want you want to do. I'll do what I want to do. We know when to separate the subjective from the objective, and when to balance the subjective/objective balance... and understand when another person has different subjective/objective balances. Peace, out (:thumbs up:)
Thanks for your input. You may want to wait for the GFX 50R which is on the horizon which is a more affordable GFX.
Over here in Japan, my regular camera store which I use for part-exchanging and getting new gear (yeah, I have G.A.S) .... has a GFX50S second on sale. Price is basically the same as a new GFX50R.
Generally speaking, the 50R form factor appeals to me in terms of street-shooting ability. Obviously, its cheaper and it'd be a new camera. But, the downside is I'm a left-eye dominant shooter. SLR format suits me better. Also, the viewfinder has high magnification (resolution is the same, it's just the glass in front of the EVF....)
So, my plan is to go to the FujiFilm Plaza in Roppongi, Tokyo... have a play with a GFX50R and compare with a 50S. ..... and we'll take it from there.
Prices on used GFX 50S have come down to that point in the USA too. The S is more versatile with the more articulate screen and OVF, however the guts of the two are virtually the same so you can’t go wrong with either. I personally I prefer the form factor of the R.
28 mm Summilux f/1.4 for the Leica M is $6,595. That's lens and body for almost $15K. Even with the inevitable compromises (f/1.4 vs f/1.7 in the Q for example) at $4,495 it is a great value. When was the last time anyone said that about a Leica? I think you may have borrowed "gateway camera" from Thorsten Overgaard, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate. :-)
The rep in NYC told me that they've sold more Q's than any other digital Leica so it's obviously ticking all the right boxes.
Why did Leica not continue to make the Q even with the new Q2....they just need to price it differently or reduce the price of Q a few hundred $
I heard the Q does not shoot at 1.7 when you are close, even if that is set on the lens, it will go to 2.8 instead. So, were the close 1.7 images really 1.7 or did it go to 2.8. Steve Huff references this in his video comparing the Q to the Sony.
Never heard of this and my Q doesn't change focal length when I shoot close.
I am not sure when the F-stop would begin to become 2.8 so I have no idea how close in you have to be for it to change so as far as shooting "that close" I can't say since it is undefined by you and not mentioned by Mr. Huff at what point it changes. If it is for macro only then that is no big deal but I mentioned it because I heard nothing about it in this video and since it is a NEW video I figured maybe the guy who shot it would have some information or one of the viewers might know. Also he shot some things fairly close it seemed to me and discussed the sharpness wide-open at 1.7 only. SO when does 1.7 become 2.8 ? Is it only in the macro settings and at what distance does that kick in? Or is the report by Mr. Huff erroneous relative to the change to 2.8?
When you put the Q in macro mode, aperture goes electronically to 2.8 even if you turn the ring to 1.7
Ok I checked the EXIF data on the macro photos and the aperture is in fact F/2.8. Thanks for the tips!
Leica lenses absolutely do live up to the hype. These stunning images strongly remind me of...now don’t laugh...my Sigma SD Quattro. That’s a seriously, (though understandably) underrated system. Funny you should bring up the X100. My satchel camera is a 2011 Limited Edition X100. So outdated now but gets great images IF you stay on top of your exposure triangle. It’s like a permanent learning experience, and so much less to worry about in case of an unexpected camera disaster 😁. Still, I’d love to get my hands on the Q. Who wouldn’t?
I loved my original X100. There was litereally nothing like it. It was odd and quirky and slow, but when you nailed it, the photos looked great and overtime they updated firmware for faster/more reliable focus. It was when I upgraded to the X100F that I really noticed how soft the files are at f/2. It's still a remarkable camera, but the Leica Q is so much better. Tack sharp, gorgeous color and bokeh and incredibly fast focusing.
Adam Lerner It’s still the same lens in the X100F, right? f2 is almost unusable! Anyway, I’d be interested to see more Leica stuff on your show. L mount cometh...
Same lens for 8 years and 4 iterations of the X100
I B, I would like to hear more about the images created by SD Quattro. How is it compare to Q ?
I've never used one.
Jared Polin's like: GET OFF THE DAMN TRAIN TRACKS!
Don't shoot on railroads kids.
ok Jared !
Great camera. Enjoy.
If this is good the new Q2 must be beyond words.
I'll bet it is!
I played with one at the Leica shop in Manhattan the other day. it's is a gatway camera..
Great info, thanks.
I almost feel like you don’t even have to edit these images straight out of the camera
Yep the files do look good right OOC
Wow. This makes me think the only drawback of Sony full frame mirrorless camera is not expensive enough.
If money wasn't an issue, I'd definitely sport an M7 & the Q.
That’s a nice set up
Gateway to poverty but I like it I like it!
“The bokeh reminds me of film”??? That makes no sense. Bokeh is a function of the lens, not the sensor/film.
Jeez gimme a break dude.
its not there prime lens line !
It is in fact, their prime lens line.
excuse i was so wrong
Are you in some way sponsored or got discount by Leica?
Nope
For me… it was an escape hatch from the fetishized world of the Leica M system.
Now i believe the Q2 is the Gateway.... if you can find one.. although the Q is still right up there!
This is a great time to pick up a used Q.
@@AdamLernerPhoto I see plenty of them... thanks!
Having seen lots of photos from Q2 and after editing many DNGs from it, I strongly believe that the images of the Q have a much more organic film like feeling. Q2 colours are too digital for my taste. I will not replace mine with a Q2 anytime soon..
@@ironsienna that's a good point. Having such a high level of rendering with that upgraded sensor will definitely change the look and feel. I love my Q and see no reason to upgrade either.
@@ironsienna where did you get the q2 files. I'd love to play with them before I choose between getting the q2 or a cheaper q
MAJORCOOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"similar to canon's red-ring and nikon's yellow-ring lenses" lmfao
See,I knew at least one person was going to cry about the price.If that's you,the Leica brand is not for you,over your head,not your personal taste.Point being,if that's the case,there's no logical point in even looking at one.That's like wanting to drive 200 MPH on the weekends,yet shopping at a used Yugo dealer.There's no debate,it's just not for that person.Evidently,this is going to happen in just about every single review,especially about niche products,and some folks cannot mentally process ONE thing at a time,so they have to compare,no matter what.
I understand the Leica mindset,because I have gear for my skating,DJing/studio work,and IT gear,that's way outside the range of the standard stuff.People will keep saying how much they can get things for,just like i know I would not buy $300 sneakers,yet i have the common sense and maturity not to make a big issue about it,unless that person is homeless and hungry with $300 sneakers on,asking people for money.Would get a Leica Q2..YES...Is it a great value?YES,for me,because I street shoot my ass off....Great review,and those images,wow..............
You can achieve the same look with other lenses!...with software!!
Using Q is pure joy, handling, image quality etc are excellent.Though in terms of IQ Nikon A and Ricoh GR are able to provide 90 percent of what Q can provide. The only difference in IQ is the ability to shoot at f1.7. If it worths to pay the premium for this is very personal matter. Also the 35mm Zeiss on the RX1 is more capable than Leica's in many areas, plus the sensor is better. It does'nt handle as well as Q or gives as much pleasure while shooting (Mark II is better with EVF, fast enough AF and flexible LCD) but the end results are just amazing at 1/5th of the price. For me X100f is just a meh camera with no specialty, I'd rather have 23mm f1.4 with a cheap x body.
That’s the thing. Performance aside, it often comes down the the joy of shooting the camera which is a purely subjective matter.
Bao Baok. How is the pic taken by Sony Rx1 compared to Q ? Which one do you prefer ?
I've never shot the RX1, but personally I prefer the Leica to Sony.
@@yew108 I think the Zeiss on Sony is fantastic, bokeh is much smoother, there is 3D pop and MF look. They are both extremely sharp wide open It is slightly wider than 35mm so that is a good thing too. Sensor is still in the top even for the first generation rx1. As for colors both have problems but I shoot raw.
Adam, thanks !
Leica color science is second to nothing.
it's only a Sony sensor, and the body has parts made in China bla bla.....all until the day you start shooting with this and you never want to give it away.
Not a huge price difference now. X100v £1600 / Leica q used 2k now.. bargain.
agreed. both great cameras and value for money but hard to compare because the 100V has phase detect AF and a flip screen, weather proofing (with adapter) and many more updated features. Still the Leica Q color with that 28mm Summilux is hard to beat.
A $5000 gateway camera?!!
Well gateway to further leicas... naturally..
When you can see the CA/color fringing on photos from a RUclips video it does not bode well.
Where did you see that? Can you please be more specific? I have never seen colour fringing on the photos taken with my Q.
Not a gateway!
Ok maybe not but for many photographers the Q/Q2 is what got them into shooting Leica
Wow what a fanboy video, see fuji pics every bit as good all day long online
Blah blah blah
@@AdamLernerPhoto Looks as though, Ed is a fuji Fanboy.... Some just can't "afford" the Q and we don't look down at them....or do we?
We do not. It’s just a camera. 😉
First farm shot is over saturated
whatever dude
A Nikon D750 with the Voigtlaender 28mm f2.8 Color Skopar produces better pictures, and costs 3 times less than the Leica Q. You Leica people really think there's nothing better out there, lol.
Get real dude, you cannot compare a D750 with a lens adapter and manually focusing lens to the Leica Q. LOL
You are certainly a nice guy but you must stop saying bokA. Bokeh is ぼけ and it pronounces BokAY, not BokA.
LOL
OMG nothing too special to see here.
So move along...
Railroad photo was so stupid. Ruined the whole video. STOP SHOOTING RAILS
LOL gimme a bread dude
Might be a culture difference, in my country this if highly illegal as many people lose their lives taking photos on rails@@AdamLernerPhoto. But nice points on the leica
Could you please make sure you pronouce Bokeh correctly. A lot of people (especially Americans) now starting to pounce the A sound without seeing any A in the word (even in Apple's TV commercials). It's BOH-Kay with a short ending sound. In the late 90s when the word appeared in American books. Some people pronounced it Boke-Uh which is a slight different than the original Japanese pronunciation from the word Boke (暈け or ボケ) that means "blur" or "haze". This is not the Tomahto/Tomaeto thing. You are a good influencer and I just want your content to correctly educate viewers. Here's the correct way to pronounce it (toward the end of the video) ruclips.net/video/Y0Brf2l8Ysc/видео.html
Over here in 'Merica, folks pronounce it as bo-keh not bo-kay, just like we say Ny-kon, not Nee-kon. Not sure what could change that, but thanks for your input!
There is nothing special about these images. Check any Fuji camera ... Disappointed !
Whatever dude. Fuji is great but a totally different animal.