Hi all,
The title of the thread may be a little misleading, because it could be another camera brand. But I always was "interested" by the Leica brand.
Let me explain, I'm a Nikon fan, I have been shotting Nikon for several years. I appreciate top quality optics, but I'm not getting any younger. At the beginning I was using DSLR's, that I found quite "big" . When Nikon introduced the mirrorless option, I thought to my self, finally I will be using top of the line line optics but in a small form factor. But it turns out, the best in class glass comes in a quite big form factor, just think about the 50mm 1.2, or the 85mm 1.2.
So, that's were the Leica comes in the picture, I have been researching a lot lately about the Leica, specially the Q3, or the Q43.
Besides being very expensive, the Leica cameras bring into the equation, a very good camera set up with excellent optic lenses.
So, I was wondering how many of you think the Leica system would be a very good alternative to the Nikon system?
Thank You.
No, not as a full system. If your needs fall within the much smaller envelope of the Leica gear, then it might for you. For many people Leica would be a separate system for specific purposes such as street photography or landscapes, while maintaining a Nikon system for general use, sports and wildlifers.
The new M EV1 looks interesting and has the high grade 61MP sensor that is not an option for Nikon or Canon, only Sony. https://leica-camera.com/en-int/photography/cameras/m/m-ev1-black
No, they are about as different as it gets. You don't get a Q to replace a full interchangeable lens system. Any IQ edge a Leica lens might have (and I have serious doubts here) will be indistinguishable in nearly every use/display case except for when you're editing.
Leica quality control SUCKS. Leica service SUCKS. Leica prices SUCK. Leica AF is completely middling.
EB-1 wrote:
No, not as a full system. If your needs fall within the much smaller envelope of the Leica gear, then it might for you. For many people Leica would be a separate system for specific purposes such as street photography or landscapes, while maintaining a Nikon system for general use, sports and wildlifers.
The new M EV1 looks interesting and has the high grade 61MP sensor that is not an option for Nikon or Canon, only Sony. https://leica-camera.com/en-int/photography/cameras/m/m-ev1-black
EBH
Thank you EB-1 for your feedback, I have been reading also very positive reviews about the M EV1.
For some inconceivable reason, the Q cameras are popular in 'the Americas' and nowhere else that matters. Most are not taken in by their digital zoom BS, they want the choice of other lenses.
They use a stack of aspherical glass shaping, which does nothing for authentic photographs, but sure ramps up Disneyland level saturation. They are not kind to human skin, so I could never use one. Sudden onset, graceless highlights.
Other point: lens quality is not highly correlated with lens speed. F1.2 might not be the best thing for your needs. F1.2 is like Spinal Tap using their amp at volume level of eleven. Despite it all, see below link. It may be just the thing you need for all I know.
RoamingScott wrote:
Sometimes all you can do is laugh.
No, they are about as different as it gets. You don't get a Q to replace a full interchangeable lens system. Any IQ edge a Leica lens might have (and I have serious doubts here) will be indistinguishable in nearly every use/display case except for when you're editing.
Leica quality control SUCKS. Leica service SUCKS. Leica prices SUCK. Leica AF is completely middling.
As always RoamingScott, you are very straight foreword and direct in your replies. What past experience you have had to be so negative about Leica. I do realize that Leica system in not at all comparative to the Nikon, Canon, and Sony systems.
Thank You.
philip_pj wrote:
For some inconceivable reason, the Q cameras are popular in 'the Americas' and nowhere else that matters. Most are not taken in by their digital zoom BS, they want the choice of other lenses.
They use a stack of aspherical glass shaping, which does nothing for authentic photographs, but sure ramps up Disneyland level saturation. They are not kind to human skin, so I could never use one. Sudden onset, graceless highlights.
Other point: lens quality is not highly correlated with lens speed. F1.2 might not be the best thing for your needs. F1.2 is like Spinal Tap using their amp at volume level of eleven. Despite it all, see below link. It may be just the thing you need for all I know.
JadedWriter wrote:
I mean...you could just buy the 1.8 lenses instead of the 1.2's.
Yes, and actually it's a very good suggestion, but are the 1.8 lenses as good as the Leica lenses?
I could rent a Leica Q3, but where i live it costs an arm and a leg to rent one.
With regard to bokeh quality, the Leica Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 is comparable to the Nikon 50 mm f/1.2. It is much smaller and lighter. Mainly because of this, it will have much more vignetting and will be less sharp in the corners. If you need sharp edges and corners, you need to get the Summicron 50 mm f/2 in addition to the Summilux. So you spend maybe 4 times the price of the Nikon 50 mm f/1.2, but both lenses will still weigh less than the Nikon. Whether you consider this an alternative, or your best options, or totally unviable, depends on your use case and your budget.
AcuteShadows wrote:
With regard to bokeh quality, the Leica Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 is comparable to the Nikon 50 mm f/1.2. It is much smaller and lighter. Mainly because of this, it will have much more vignetting and will be less sharp in the corners. If you need sharp edges and corners, you need to get the Summicron 50 mm f/2 in addition to the Summilux. So you spend maybe 4 times the price of the Nikon 50 mm f/1.2, but both lenses will still weigh less than the Nikon. Whether you consider this an alternative, or your best options, or totally unviable, depends on your use case and your budget....Show more →
Thank you AcuteShadows, that's exactly what I have been debating about it, for me it's about quality vs portability.
I'll share my perspective - I'm coming from a slightly different direction - mainly a leica user these days (previously Sony and Fuji) that has occasionally dabbled with Nikon - mainly Z6III and ZF.
I have the Leica Q3 43mm - if you can afford it, get it. I sold it, regretted it, and bought it again - lens renders extremely well, very sharp, and it's a much more compact setup compared to anything Nikon has. The image quality is special - sharp, great colors, high contrast, good subject separation - Nikon's 40mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 doesn't compare. It's not cheap but if you can afford it, I would highly recommend buying one. I don't think it replaces a full Nikon system but it's well worth owning.
I also have a Leica M11 and a set of rangefinder lenses. I enjoy using it and the images are great but I don't think it's a good Nikon alternative given that it's manual focus only. In fact the reason I've tried the ZF and Z6III is because there are times where I wish I had super competent AF and video so I buy it but never enjoy using it enough to justify keeping. The reason you buy a Leica M is for some combination of the photography experience, size, design, image quality (the M APOs and f1.4 Summilux lenses are quite good too), and yes status symbol for some people.
What is directly comparable as an alternative is the Leica SL system however Leica's cameras really lag behind the main manufacturers in technical performance and features across the board. The SL3 is probably equivalent to a Sony A7RIV/Z7II and the SL3-S is equivalent to a Panasonic S5II but way more expensive. The reason you buy a SL camera is to use M-mount lenses on it (the sensor doesn't smear rangefinder lenses as much) and the SL APO lenses. Fanboys will say the user interface is better but not worth the cost differential unless you really cannot figure out the menus. The SL APO lenses though are magical and amazing in rendering but I think the smart decision, at least for me, was to buy the Q3 43mm and get a taste of that. I'm quite tempted to buy a SL3-s camera for compatibility with the rest of my Leica setup but objectively it's not better than what the major manufacturers are offering.
In summary - buy a Leica if you want something special, different or unique. But I would say it's not really going to be a good Nikon (or Sony and Canon for that matter) alternative unless you really want those SL APO lenses or want to get into M-mount (which I highly recommend but it's not everyone's cup of tea). The Q3 43mm APO as a companion camera to your main Nikon setup makes a lot of sense if you want a taste of Leica without fully committing.
youie wrote:
Thank you AcuteShadows, that's exactly what I have been debating about it, for me it's about quality vs portability.
With regard to the best Nikon lenses, you will not get better technical quality, just smaller form factor and manual focus. But this only has been the case since Nikon launched the Z Nikkor lenses, and the f/1.2 lenses in particular. If you are looking for a specific character, Nikon might not have the perfect lens for you, but Leica may do. On the other hand, Leica does not have an equivalent to the Nikkor 58 mm f/1.4 lens, either. Some years ago, the only real competitors for Leica in image quality were Zeiss, Hasselblad, and Phase One/Rodenstock. Hasselblad has sinced improved on their lenses, and some Fuji G lenses have joined the fray. Many lenses from these manufacturers are bigger and technically better than Leica lenses if you need perfection across the frame. But they are as heavy as Nikon f/1.2 lenses or even heavier. They are closer competitors or alternatives for the top end Nikon products than Leica, in my opinion.
youie wrote:
Yes, and actually it's a very good suggestion, but are the 1.8 lenses as good as the Leica lenses?
I could rent a Leica Q3, but where i live it costs an arm and a leg to rent one.
The Nikon f1.8 S primes are absolutely top notch, in particular the 20mm, 50mm, 85mm and of course the 135mm but the Plena is quite large. The 24mm and 35mm are also very good, but not quite as outstanding. Still better than any equivalent DSLR prime ever made.
In fact as recently as 3 days ago I shot some portraits quite casually under office lights with my Zf and 85mm f1.8 S and a colleague owning a Leica Q2 was stunned by the optical quality coming out of that lens.
tzhang4284 wrote:
I'll share my perspective - I'm coming from a slightly different direction - mainly a leica user these days (previously Sony and Fuji) that has occasionally dabbled with Nikon - mainly Z6III and ZF.
I have the Leica Q3 43mm - if you can afford it, get it. I sold it, regretted it, and bought it again - lens renders extremely well, very sharp, and it's a much more compact setup compared to anything Nikon has. The image quality is special - sharp, great colors, high contrast, good subject separation - Nikon's 40mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 doesn't compare. It's not cheap but if you can afford it, I would highly recommend buying one. I don't think it replaces a full Nikon system but it's well worth owning.
I also have a Leica M11 and a set of rangefinder lenses. I enjoy using it and the images are great but I don't think it's a good Nikon alternative given that it's manual focus only. In fact the reason I've tried the ZF and Z6III is because there are times where I wish I had super competent AF and video so I buy it but never enjoy using it enough to justify keeping. The reason you buy a Leica M is for some combination of the photography experience, size, design, image quality (the M APOs and f1.4 Summilux lenses are quite good too), and yes status symbol for some people.
What is directly comparable as an alternative is the Leica SL system however Leica's cameras really lag behind the main manufacturers in technical performance and features across the board. The SL3 is probably equivalent to a Sony A7RIV/Z7II and the SL3-S is equivalent to a Panasonic S5II but way more expensive. The reason you buy a SL camera is to use M-mount lenses on it (the sensor doesn't smear rangefinder lenses as much) and the SL APO lenses. Fanboys will say the user interface is better but not worth the cost differential unless you really cannot figure out the menus. The SL APO lenses though are magical and amazing in rendering but I think the smart decision, at least for me, was to buy the Q3 43mm and get a taste of that. I'm quite tempted to buy a SL3-s camera for compatibility with the rest of my Leica setup but objectively it's not better than what the major manufacturers are offering.
In summary - buy a Leica if you want something special, different or unique. But I would say it's not really going to be a good Nikon (or Sony and Canon for that matter) alternative unless you really want those SL APO lenses or want to get into M-mount (which I highly recommend but it's not everyone's cup of tea). The Q3 43mm APO as a companion camera to your main Nikon setup makes a lot of sense if you want a taste of Leica without fully committing. ...Show more →
Thank you tzhang4284 for sharing your perspective in a such well written matter this is the kind of feedback I was hopping to get. clearly it's worth serious consideration and reflection on what my next move will be.
bernardl wrote:
The Nikon f1.8 S primes are absolutely top notch, in particular the 20mm, 50mm, 85mm and of course the 135mm but the Plena is quite large. The 24mm and 35mm are also very good, but not quite as outstanding. Still better than any equivalent DSLR prime ever made.
In fact as recently as 3 days ago I shot some portraits quite casually under office lights with my Zf and 85mm f1.8 S and a colleague owning a Leica Q2 was stunned by the optical quality coming out of that lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard for sharing your input, maybe I have discarded the 1.8S lenses too quickly. I'm starting to think that maybe I should give the 1.8s lenses a try first, that completely change systems.
There’s almost no reason to shoot at f/1.2. Grab an f/2, f/2.8, or even f/4 lens, and suddenly your gear will be much smaller. Instead of spending money on new gear that’ll never make you a better photographer, go to a workshop, visit that location you’ve always wanted to shoot and spend a month there, or hire a pro model, or ten. It’s an infinitely better way to spend your money on your hobby.
I ended up spending too much time on a Leica forum, even though my experience is limited to occasionally borrowing an M4 from a friend. So I decided to spend some real time with Leica gear and went almost back to the roots, I got myself a Leica IIIf I’ll shoot a few rolls of film with it, sell it, and if it still feels fun, I’ll move on to an M3, M4, M11, or something along those lines, a few months with each. It is relatively inexpensive project comparing to some other things.
Edit: Somehow it skipped my mind; I had and shot with fed5 and some other Soviet-made Leica like camera for a long time when I was much younger...
youie wrote:
As always RoamingScott, you are very straight foreword and direct in your replies. What past experience you have had to be so negative about Leica. I do realize that Leica system in not at all comparative to the Nikon, Canon, and Sony systems.
Thank You.
I shot the same 61mp sensor Leica uses for many years and know that it offers nearly nothing over even a 24mp Nikon sensor in terms of image quality for every day applications.
All I need to know about the Leica ownership experience I have gleaned from disgruntled Leica owners on this very forum. I don't have a need to drop $10000 to experience it myself.
I’ll shoot a few rolls of film with it, sell it, and if it still feels fun, I’ll move on to an M3, M4, M11, or something along those lines, a few months with each. It is relatively inexpensive project comparing to some other things.