The Q series could be seen as a comparative bargain, a body with a virtually free lens. Ironically it could be argued that they are now Leica's most successful offering.
KLaban wrote:
The Q series could be seen as a comparative bargain, a body with a virtually free lens. Ironically it could be argued that they are now Leica's most successful offering.
It is usually the Leica influencers who bring up that point. I get why they do, and I am not saying they are wrong. It just tends to show up a lot whenever the price comes up. It is a bargain, guys.
KLaban wrote:
The Q series could be seen as a comparative bargain, a body with a virtually free lens. Ironically it could be argued that they are now Leica's most successful offering.
Definitely a solid offering, but there are so many ways to calculate value. All of them involve trade-offs and personal preference. When only considering a Monochrome camera, the options greatly narrow. I’m happy with my M11M and a number of focal length & lens size/weight options, but if I didn’t own any ‘M’ system components, the Q3M would be at the top of my list. For a small camera that fits in my front pocket and amazing optics, the M11M and Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f/3.5 aspherical is a great pairing. I have Fred to thank for making me aware of this small, high performance lens and the high ISO capabilities of the Monochrom take care of the smaller maximum aperture.
KLaban wrote:
The Q series could be seen as a comparative bargain, a body with a virtually free lens. Ironically it could be argued that they are now Leica's most successful offering.
I’m not knowledgeable about most high end products and their pricing, but I do know that if I want a Ferrari engine I need to buy a Ferrari. With Leica, I get a Sony sensor.
It varies by market. 'as interesting as China’s booming interest in interchangeable lens cameras (over 30%) is its relatively little interest in cameras with built-in lenses, including trendy compact cameras.
The Americas and Japan are the hottest markets for these cameras, with the Americas having a 26% share of shipments so far this year and Japan at 23%. China, meanwhile, sits just above Asia with a 16% share.'
They are deserting phone cameras (maybe should be called camera phones) in droves and are disenchanted with single lens products. Probably, they want to use their own lenses too, and the sheer flexibility of ILCs.
johnvanr wrote:
I’m not knowledgeable about most high end products and their pricing, but I do know that if I want a Ferrari engine I need to buy a Ferrari. With Leica, I get a Sony sensor.
No, it may be more correct to compare a Sony sensor to an engine block than an entire engine. When you buy a Leica camera you get a base Sony sensor but bolted on to that sensor are many Leica proprietary components like cover glass, micro lenses, color filters (Bayer Layer) and processor. All of this gives a unique set of performance characteristics that separates Leica camers from others. Note that "separates" is not a quality claim. The preferences for this culmination of sensor characteristics is a highly personal choice.
By the way that Ferrari engine contains only about 60% !Ferrari made components. The rest are sources from outside manufactures that supply many car manufacturers also. The Ferrari plant is only about 30 minutes from my home. I visit every once in a while and know people there and in the component supply companies. In fact my Berkel-9 machine was just restored using Ferrari paint from it's supplier.
1bwana1 wrote:
No, it may be more correct to compare a Sony sensor to an engine block than an entire engine. When you buy a Leica camera you get a base Sony sensor but bolted on to that sensor are many Leica proprietary components like cover glass, micro lenses, color filters (Bayer Layer) and processor. All of this gives a unique set of performance characteristics that separates Leica camers from others. Note that "separates" is not a quality claim. The preferences for this culmination of sensor characteristics is a highly personal choice.
By the way that Ferrari engine contains only about 60% !Ferrari made components. The rest are sources from outside manufactures that supply many car manufacturers also. The Ferrari plant is only about 30 minutes from my home. I visit every once in a while and know people there and in the component supply companies. In fact my Berkel-9 machine was just restored using Ferrari paint from it's supplier. ...Show more →
Googled "Berkel-9 machine" expecting to find some sort of exotic automobile. But . . .
what i thought was interesting is that Leica has removed phase-detect AF sensors so it's contrast-detect only. so literally the same sensor as the M11 Monochrom?
this tells me it's for cost-cutting measures so they don't have to fabricate Q sensors separately. but of course marketing will say it's by design.
dalegaspi wrote:
what i thought was interesting is that Leica has removed phase-detect AF sensors so it's contrast-detect only. so literally the same sensor as the M11 Monochrom?
this tells me it's for cost-cutting measures so they don't have to fabricate Q sensors separately. but of course marketing will say it's by design.
It's not for cost cutting measures, it's to prevent it from costing much more (or taking much longer to develop). Phase detection is most typically implemented with reference to the color spectrum. It's much more difficult of an engineering task to implement without the sensor being able to see color.
tigerlo wrote:
Is there any thing from Leica that the price isn’t crazy?
Last year I bought a replacement neckstrap for my Ultravid 10x25 binoculars, direct from Leica USA (because CameraWest who I bought the binos from couldn’t be bothered to help me).
$10.
I kid you not.
Yeah it’s only a nylon thing but still! I still am in shock.
johnvanr wrote:
I’m not knowledgeable about most high end products and their pricing, but I do know that if I want a Ferrari engine I need to buy a Ferrari. With Leica, I get a Sony sensor.
Yeah but if you want it to drive and go places, it takes the same gasoline that my Yugo does.
There's no easy way to go higher and actually benefit from it without increasing the size of the EVF optics. Many get disappointed when smaller cameras only offer something like a 2.4M-dot EVF, but that's because higher resolution requires more magnification and a more complex optical system.
The higher the EVF resolution, the larger and better corrected the optics need to be for our eyes to actually see the difference, since our eyes effectively act like the sensor.
Fred Miranda wrote:
5.76M dots seems to be the current sweet spot.
There's no easy way to go higher and actually benefit from it without increasing the size of the EVF optics. Many get disappointed when smaller cameras only offer something like a 2.4M-dot EVF, but that's because higher resolution requires more magnification and a more complex optical system.
The higher the EVF resolution, the larger and better corrected the optics need to be for our eyes to actually see the difference, since our eyes effectively act like the sensor.
For some reason I thought it was much less. 5.76 is plenty.
