1bwana1 wrote:
Considering that you have a strong preference for the Q3 28mm I would go with that plus the D-Lux 8.
On the other hand the Q3 43 focal length is about half way through the D-Lux 8 focal range of 24mm-75mm.
I pair my D-Lux 8 with my M11 which makes even more sense to me.
I guess my question is really ... which end of the D-Lux 8 is its strong hand vs. weak hand. If it is weaker on the long end, then pairing with the 43 might make more sense. OTOH, if it is weaker on the wide end, pairing with the 28 might be the way to go.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Because of this, I believe Leica chose the fixed lens design to maintain portability. Also, loyal Leica shooters may own both the fixed lens Q cameras (28/43) and perhaps even a future Q3 90/2 APO (Portrait edition). Why sell just lenses when they can sell a camera and lens combo!
Leica is sticking to this design simply for two reasons: People buy it (only M cameras sell better and are the #1 best seller for Leica followed by the Q series as #2) and to avoid in-house competition with the (underperforming sales-wise) SL series. If Leica made an AF-based Q with exchangeable lens mount - and even if it is just manual focus M -mount - it will compromise Q- and SL sales. This is the current fiasco Leica faces. IMO portability is an excuse since I can travel with my M camera all day long - actually an M camera with small lens is more portable than a Q with more bulky AF-based fixed lens.
retrofocus wrote:
Leica is sticking to this design simply for two reasons: People buy it (only M cameras sell better and are the #1 best seller for Leica followed by the Q series as #2) and to avoid in-house competition with the (underperforming sales-wise) SL series. If Leica made an AF-based Q with exchangeable lens mount - and even if it is just manual focus M -mount - it will compromise Q- and SL sales. This is the current fiasco Leica faces. IMO portability is an excuse since I can travel with my M camera all day long - actually an M camera with small lens is more portable than a Q with more bulky AF-based fixed lens. ...Show more →
The question is why people buy M cameras. For me, for example, it’s mostly as a platform for small, excellent lenses. I don’t really care that much about the rangefinder experience and I don’t believe in Leica colors. So, the only weakness of some other FF cameras vs the M and SL in dealing with those lenses is the sensor stack. If the Leica market wasn’t so small, another camera maker could take on Leica pretty easily (as Nikon partly did, probably unwittingly, with the Zf).
If I were Leica and I see where my top sales are and how people ask for an M with EVF or a Q with interchangeable lenses, I’d rather build that competitor to my existing models myself, than wait for others to do it.
johnvanr wrote:
The question is why people buy M cameras. For me, for example, it’s mostly as a platform for small, excellent lenses. I don’t really care that much about the rangefinder experience and I don’t believe in Leica colors. So, the only weakness of some other FF cameras vs the M and SL in dealing with those lenses is the sensor stack. If the Leica market wasn’t so small, another camera maker could take on Leica pretty easily (as Nikon partly did, probably unwittingly, with the Zf).
If I were Leica and I see where my top sales are and how people ask for an M with EVF or a Q with interchangeable lenses, I’d rather build that competitor to my existing models myself, than wait for others to do it....Show more →
It's actually a good point you bring up here. The Zf also came to mind but as you said likely not purposely made to make rangefinder lenses work so well with its sensor stack. And yes, if there is a MLC camera which works very well with most and especially wider M lenses, I will certainly consider even if it requires again using an adapter (which I am not too fund of, but if such camera option comes for a much more affordable price and excellent performance with M lenses, then I would compromise here).
Reason why such camera didn't see the light of the day yet is most likely that other camera brands don't want to compromise selling their own lenses in the same camera mount environment. Sony was in 2013 and few years after the big exemption of this rule when they first released the A7 FF MLC series but had no coverage with E-mount lenses yet. They made it attractive to use the cameras and adapter (which Sony actually provided for free in Australia for a while with the A7 series) to use with SLR and DSLR lenses from other brands (targeted was especially Canon). And for Sony this recipe worked extremely well until they had an established place in the MLC market. But now MLCs have become kind of commodities - why should a camera manufacturer vest into developing a rangefinder lens targeted camera when they even can't sell their own lenses for it? Also, the manufacturer would need to bring up the price for such camera since development cost won't be balanced by selling own branded lenses with it but mostly competitive M-lenses.
That's why it will most likely revert back to Leica to come up with a EVF-M / Q with exchangeable lens mount. But for reasons mentioned earlier they likely will continue dragging their feet doing so. I wish there would be some competition for Leica in this market.
So where will the PIXII Max come into the equation? Will it have a built in EVF soon? If so that would be interesting since it is made for M lenses. Plus for me it has 24Mp which as in the past many were plenty happy with as a sensor, but this one is BSI which to me sounds like the SL2S sensor in an M like modern body.
An interchangeable lens SL mount camera without small high quality lenses is kind of pointless - see Panasonic s9.
As for the EVF-M, seems like it’s coming judging from the m12 rumors but I’m not sure it’ll be better than the current rangefinder experience without some sort of af assist feature like the zf has.
Interestingly, I got a customer survey from Leica today about how I use video so seems like that’s their next push. I put the words stacked sensor and global shutter as much as possible in the survey. I do hope they also bring back video into the m line even as a secondary feature.
tzhang4284 wrote:
An interchangeable lens SL mount camera without small high quality lenses is kind of pointless - see Panasonic s9.
As for the EVF-M, seems like it’s coming judging from the m12 rumors but I’m not sure it’ll be better than the current rangefinder experience without some sort of af assist feature like the zf has.
Interestingly, I got a customer survey from Leica today about how I use video so seems like that’s their next push. I put the words stacked sensor and global shutter as much as possible in the survey. I do hope they also bring back video into the m line even as a secondary feature....Show more →
+1. I am not a video-centric person but love the option in my cameras to use it if needed. It is one reason why I still use my M 240 based cameras which are equipped with video. Only after the SL series was released, video in M cameras was slopped by Leica starting with the M10. I doubt Leica will ever intend to bring it back into the M or hypothetical EVF-M lines - as long as they are still committed to the SL series.
stgrove wrote:
So where will the PIXII Max come into the equation? Will it have a built in EVF soon? If so that would be interesting since it is made for M lenses. Plus for me it has 24Mp which as in the past many were plenty happy with as a sensor, but this one is BSI which to me sounds like the SL2S sensor in an M like modern body.
It is extremely unlikely for the Pixii to get a EVF based off of everything they’ve said and Pixii Max have just started shipping to customers.
I’m still on the fence about upgrading from the Pixii+ to the Max myself.
tzhang4284 wrote:
An interchangeable lens SL mount camera without small high quality lenses is kind of pointless - see Panasonic s9.
As for the EVF-M, seems like it’s coming judging from the m12 rumors but I’m not sure it’ll be better than the current rangefinder experience without some sort of af assist feature like the zf has.
Interestingly, I got a customer survey from Leica today about how I use video so seems like that’s their next push. I put the words stacked sensor and global shutter as much as possible in the survey. I do hope they also bring back video into the m line even as a secondary feature....Show more →
I got the same survey and for me told them that I could care less about video especially with an M. I even said that NEVER use video on my SL3, SL2S, Q3 and Q343. Then I said I have taken video once and that was with a GoPro12 while inside the Grand Canyon on the CO River.
I'm ambivalent about video. I didn't like it on the M. That was because it added unwanted complexity to a camera that wasn't supposed to be.
But now Leica have their video UI sorted. There are no video only buttons and no mixed menus. It's two separate devices in one body. I'm fine with the M having video if there's a menu item to hide video entirely buried in the camera setup part of the stills menu.
I'd rather see this hypothetical L mount rf style body though. Or even an all in L mount video centric camera built for cages etc.
stgrove wrote:
I got the same survey and for me told them that I could care less about video especially with an M. I even said that NEVER use video on my SL3, SL2S, Q3 and Q343. Then I said I have taken video once and that was with a GoPro12 while inside the Grand Canyon on the CO River.
u#^@()^#*#*&^#*!!! "oooops" when I accidentally activated it by bumping the stup(*@#(&^&@*(*@&#id button.
I managed to do it as recent as tonight, fumbling in the dark. It doesn't happen often (say once or twice a year), but I have no need for video in my Leica gear. If I really wanted to shoot video, I'd just get something that is part of the L mount alliance, but not my Leica's. Not to get all nostalgic, but the premise of Leica understanding how to "get out of the way" in crafting their tools ... ummm, the video thing is turning the "less is more" into "more is confusing" (insert flame, or bad joke, about me being inept, here ).
KLaban wrote:
I'd be more inclined to buy a D-LUX 8 if it had a compact, prime lens. Focal length 24-28mm. A really small, discrete, point and shoot camera.
If it were only a fixed lens ... m43 sensor ... I might consider the GRIII instead. Likely though, I'd just break out my GX8 and PL 15/1.7. It was the start of my entire journey into Leica. The combo was so good on the little m43 sensor, I figured I'd level up into Leica proper (and thus, the journey began).
The one thing that might sway me to a D-Lux prime ... is the shutter release responsiveness, and ergonomic if it was better than the GRIII, etc. I reckon the diff between m43 vs. APS-C isn't "that" great.
For me, I see the D-Lux 8 as an upgrade to the GX8, with a fixed zoom, vs. ILC.
flash wrote:
If you have a q3-28 then a dlux8 makes no sense. The Q3 crop modes better the dlux resolution to 50mm anyway. So just use the Q3.
Actually I don't see them as a team at all.
Gordon
You completely neglected the price and form factor differences. Also the WYSIWYG nature of the zoom shooting experience rather than the crop lines in the Q.
The D-Lux 8 is a convenient and fun little camera to shoot in many situations. It probably is almost never the high IQ choice.
At the moment, I have a Q3 43 and a Zf with an assortment of MF and AF lenses.
For a few weeks now, I’ve been debating whether to sell my Nikon gear to fund the purchase of a Q3 28.
The allure of having two camera bodies with the same controls and settings, with relatively similar raw files, with the same great ergonomics and shooting experience, is difficult to resist…
What has given me pause is the material gap between the Zf’s focusing system and that of the Q3 43, which has been hit and miss for me… increasingly so, as I’ve had more opportunities to shoot moving subjects.
I worry that I will regret not having at least one camera in my kit capable of capturing fast moving action… even dynamic portraits can be a challenge with the 43… especially relative to how easy it is with the Zf.
I’m still not sure what my best move is… I don’t think a less-than-full frame sensor would be enough for me… I love having the ability to shoot creatively using a shallow depth of field and the m4/3 and 1 inch sensors can’t produce what I’m looking for.
And the thing is… I really, really love the Zf’s sensor’s output. There is a little magic in there and I’ve found that I can get skin tones that are as good as I’ve ever seen out of a digital camera.
If the Zf’s sensor was 40mp and the camera body was as compact and balanced as the Qi’s, it would be a no-brainer to keep it… heck, I probably wouldn’t have purchased the 43 in the first place.
Dear Nikon… please produce an updated version of the Zf with a non-stacked 40ish megapixels sensor with zero video capability and instead reducing the weight by 15-20%. Thanks 🙂
Raptor_Fan76 wrote:
At the moment, I have a Q3 43 and a Zf with an assortment of MF and AF lenses.
For a few weeks now, I’ve been debating whether to sell my Nikon gear to fund the purchase of a Q3 28.
The allure of having two camera bodies with the same controls and settings, with relatively similar raw files, with the same great ergonomics and shooting experience, is difficult to resist…
What has given me pause is the material gap between the Zf’s focusing system and that of the Q3 43, which has been hit and miss for me… increasingly so, as I’ve had more opportunities to shoot moving subjects.
I worry that I will regret not having at least one camera in my kit capable of capturing fast moving action… even dynamic portraits can be a challenge with the 43… especially relative to how easy it is with the Zf.
I’m still not sure what my best move is… I don’t think a less-than-full frame sensor would be enough for me… I love having the ability to shoot creatively using a shallow depth of field and the m4/3 and 1 inch sensors can’t produce what I’m looking for.
And the thing is… I really, really love the Zf’s sensor’s output. There is a little magic in there and I’ve found that I can get skin tones that are as good as I’ve ever seen out of a digital camera.
If the Zf’s sensor was 40mp and the camera body was as compact and balanced as the Qi’s, it would be a no-brainer to keep it… heck, I probably wouldn’t have purchased the 43 in the first place.
Dear Nikon… please produce an updated version of the Zf with a non-stacked 40ish megapixels sensor with zero video capability and instead reducing the weight by 15-20%. Thanks 🙂
That’s the thing. You take a Leica (or a Hasselblad) and you get that premium feel, but when you also own the top consumer or pro range of more pedestrian brands, you realize your Veblen goods in many instances actually underperform.
1bwana1 wrote:
You completely neglected the price and form factor differences. Also the WYSIWYG nature of the zoom shooting experience rather than the crop lines in the Q.
The D-Lux 8 is a convenient and fun little camera to shoot in many situations. It probably is almost never the high IQ choice.
No I didn't. I just said if I had a Q3 then I think a DLux 8 is redundant. If I thought the things you mention were important I'd have a DLux8 and likely not a Q3. I see them as either or. Not both. I'm not dissing your fav for now camera.
