I think the EVF on my X100T is pretty good and if the next M has something like it as the La Vide site has mentioned, I think that would be an interesting evolution. I'm not a fan of the MF functionality- mainly because if the fly-by-wire nature of the small lens. I am really intrigued by the Q's MF functionality implementation. A X100T EVF-OVF done to Leica standards would be very interesting to me.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Given Lloyd's more prominent position as a paid camera reviewer that runs a site based on a subscription fee model, I do think he should be held to a higher standard and at least read the manual, particularly before he quite publicly denounces a camera as a POS.
His initial post was was too harsh, and once he understood the problem he probably should've edited it more, but otherwise I disagree with you. He did read the manual, and he still couldn't figure it out, because it makes no sense and, per an update from Leica today, apparently isn't working correctly. That's not Lloyd's fault. Moreover, warning me about feature limitations and interface foibles is exactly what I expect from a paid camera reviewer.
If you read his post on the Q from today, you'll find he's quite positive about the camera other than the AF issues and the severe distortion of the lens. But there's no reason to be precious about the revelation that, like any camera, it isn't perfect. You see defensiveness from other brand fanboys, but not the same way as with Leica. Nikon fanboys are far too quick to forgive Nikon for the D600 oil spots and how Nikon mishandled them, but if Leica had made the D600, people would still be insisting that the oil spots were an intended feature to give images an "authentic, weathered" look, and ever since the D610 came out it the D600 would've become a collector's item.
I actually don't have the problem. Or can't seem to reproduce what he's saying.. Maybe I don't understand what he is writing, maybe his camera is defective. Maybe the firmware needs to be updated.
Just buy a bubble level for the top of your camera, it's so much easier. Jeeze
And Lee - I made the bubble lvl comment for your sake.
Just to add, I disagree with you, from where I stand. I pay a premium for Leica, so I expect a premium product all around with premium service if something goes wrong.
When something does go wrong, I raise hell. And I bitch about it on the forums if they don't do right by me.
I don't do this with CaNikon gear, even though I use Leica and Canon/Nikon equally for work. Simply speaking, CaNikon doesn't charge me a premium for products, thus I don't expect premium service. Though most of the time CaNikon has fixed broken cameras/lenses with 1day turn arounds.. Leica has not.
Lee Saxon wrote:
If you read his post on the Q from today, you'll find he's quite positive about the camera other than the AF issues and the severe distortion of the lens. But there's no reason to be precious about the revelation that, like any camera, it isn't perfect. You see defensiveness from other brand fanboys, but not the same way as with Leica. Nikon fanboys are far too quick to forgive Nikon for the D600 oil spots and how Nikon mishandled them, but if Leica had made the D600, people would still be insisting that the oil spots were an intended feature to give images an "authentic, weathered" look, and ever since the D610 came out it the D600 would've become a collector's item....Show more →
I don't know about that. As I remember, the M8 was the subject of much hate on online forums, including from Leica fans (the M9 as well, though quite a bit less so). The T also hasn't received the warmest of receptions.
That said, I've noticed that many Leica users do hope beyond hope that Leica will resolve issues that other camera makers addressed several product generations ago. Some of that forgiveness/flexibility may arise from the fact that few competitors are doing what Leica is doing (particularly in the RF space).
I think i've mentioned this before.. But the more I use the Q, the more I like it. And the more frustrated I get with a few things.
1) Focusing square is to big, considering it's a wide angle lens. I wish you could set the sizes and still have it perform the same.
2) The spot metering also should be able to fine tune like you can with the Nikon. That or, it should be more sensitive (as in, tinier area that it samples from).
3) I keep confusing it with my M, but then I get 1/3 stops and full stops, and it messes with my Manual control flow.
4) That LCD EVF menue playback thing I mentioned.. They REALLY need to fix that in a firmware.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I know all cameras have various ergonomic and menu system foibles like this, but with all the talking about Leica's prices being partially justified by the clean elegant control systems, I have to post http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150711_1806-LeicaQ-AF-files.html
I should probably post all of his pieces about how many times his M240 has crashed, too...
Sorry, I have to poke the Leica fans a little
Arka wrote:
Well, my M240 crashed a lot too until the most recent software update. I would say that update reduced crashes by at least 90%, though I can still cause the camera to have issues when using live view.
Sorry, a bit OT, but now that you mentioned it... I just shot ~3000 frames on the M240 and I don't remember any lock-up. Usually during such intense use, I get at least 2-3. I really hope it was the new firmware and not a fluke!
Thanks to all for their first impressions and shared images.
My reasoning of Q ownership is a compact and light-weight combination of a fast 28mm lens with a leaf shutter and FF sensor, enhanced with the best EVF among other compacts. There are no alternatives offering aforementioned ingredients in one body. I decided to try the camera out in person.
What I like/impressed with:
Body dimensions, light weight & comfortable ergonomics.
Fast and moderately accurate AF in low light and indoor mixed lights at f/1.7.
Images shot at f/1.7 are of a high contrast and acutance.
Cons:
Omission of EVF/LCD switch button
Magnification area in MF mode can't be moved with a navi pad and is always set to a frame center regardless of AF point position.
Power ON/OFF switch is difficult to set to S (single shot) mode on a fly, as it tends to move further to C (continuous) mode. A very careful, deliberate action is required to avoid starting the camera up in continuous mode.
Last image shot is displayed in the EVF upon start-up when image review option is turned off.
No EVF eye cup options
My biggest concern – high level of barrel distortion, has been kind of resolved after shooting with a Q and reviewing shots in different RAW converters. Surprisingly, I'm quite satisfied with distortion level before camera does some adjustment tricks to correct it. While straight lines do benefit from this built-in lens profile, 3D objects, e.g. people, suffer from this correction. I'd like to share several full resolution JPGs converted with Lightroom and RawTherapee. These images illustrate my point quite well. Download 6 JPG files from here: http://goo.gl/CBq4D8
Browsing through a gallery of shots I took in various environments under natural and artificial light at f/1.7, I notice that even in RawTherapee amount of axial and transverse CA is very low. There is no fringing. Vignetting is extreme in the very corners, but it does not extend beyond that small triangle area. That is a very impressive result compared to other 28mm (75° FOV) lenses. Equally impressive is Summilux 28/1.7 ASPH MTF graph
Its contrast and microcontrast are pretty high across the frame compared to the performance of either Summilux 28/1.4 or Otus 28/1.4 @ f/1.4. I suspect that CA and vignetting correction is baked into a RAW file. Lightroom applies a built-in profile that does image cropping and stretching, and cleans up any remaining traces of CA. Whatever the case with all aberration corrections is, it is the final image that matters, isn't it?
I'm still perplexed with bokeh rendition produced by Q. My expectation of a drawing style of a 28mm (75° FOV) and f/1.7 aperture is not quite met with a Leica Q. A wider than 75° FOV (even after distortion correction), cropping and stretching will have it's toll. As a result, background blur is slightly stronger with the Distagon when both are shot at f/2.0, similar between Summilux's f/1.7 & Distagon's f/2.0 aperture.
FW improvements I'd like to be offered:
1. Option to disable DNG embeded distortion correction
2. User configurable EVF overlays for custom aspect ratio, e.g. 1x1 or 2.4x1
3. Extra option for customization of FN or “Zoom/Lock” button to enable switching between EVF/LCD Live View
4. Camera should be able to remember last menu option position after power OFF/ON.
