Raptor_Fan76
Online
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I’ve owned both the Q2 and Q3 in the past, and now own the ZF. The Zf is significantly heavier (30% or more with a lens attached) and less ergonomic than the Q3. In terms of as a daily carry, I would rank the Q closer to the X100vi (which I’ve also owned) than I would the Zf.
As much as I love the Zf, the reality is that it is basically a Z6 without a grip. I love the thing, but it is a pain to haul around compared to the Q… it’s just not close.
Then you have to add in two additional lenses that you would need to carry to obtain the same effective focal length to megapixel options you get with the Q.
The tactile quality of the materials used and the user experience is also superior with the Q. The menus are also better, but that’s not really relevant for this discussion
I totally understand the sticker shock people get when looking at the Q, but value is subjective the further you go up the luxury scale… and miniaturization across all forms of technology always costs more. There is, at the end of the day, no rational argument for spending 2-3x more for anything, so no expectation here in terms of swaying anyone’s opinion.
But the Q3s are exceptional cameras and for someone like me, who would prefer one, small, lightweight, and ergonomic camera to take with me literally everywhere… it can’t be beat.
The only reason I let go of the 28mm Q3 is that the 28/35/50 range that it effectively covers skewed further to the wide angle than my personal shooting habits required. I’ve been wanting something like the 43 to exist since first buying the Q2… it’s essentially the perfect camera for my personal shooting preferences. For that, I’m willing to pay a premium.
It also shouldn’t be overlooked that value retention is a real thing with Leica products… you can buy a Q3 today… use it for 18-24 months, and likely sell it for 20% less than you paid… you lose 40% of the value of a Zf the first time you click the shutter outside of the store.
Do the math, and the cost of using a Q vs. a Zf over a two year period isn’t as bad as it might first seem.
The same paradigm exists in the luxury watch market… you get way more value for the money when you buy a 3861 Omega Speedmaster vs a Rolex Daytona… but the Speedy (which I love dearly) depreciates by 35-45% the second you walk out the door. I’ve been lucky to have bought and sold a few Rolexes in my day, and I’ve never sold a Rolex for less than I originally paid at retail.
The good news is that every camera doesn’t need to be for everyone and more options is always a good thing 🙂
RoamingScott wrote:
I will never understand the appeal of a $7000 daily carry that is just as big if not bigger than a ZF and small lens and way bigger than other options like the X100 type cams.
Either way I certainly wouldn’t divest excellent discontinued lenses before a long term relationship with the replacement.
|
I think this board drove more intrest that there is actually demand for them. They are both back on sale 
