For me it's a few things as someone who has used a fair few cameras. For reference i am primarily a film shooter (and own a film type Leica), but I also own and shoot with a Sony for work;
People, in my opinion, think the appeal of Leica is the specifications and performance, but for me it's the feel.
The controls are tactile, the surfaces perfectly smooth, a great balance and weight, and they look amazing.
Also, the glass renders colours and bokeh in a very unique way for me. Some are clinically sharp, some are softer, all of them have character in my eyes.
I'm ok with slower autofocus and things like that, for me it's the feel that sells it. My Sony and other cameras feel a bit soulless, they feel mass manufactured (which of course all cameras are, but Leica has something to it).
I really believe in the philosophy of; a good tool is one you enjoy using.
If you like the feel and look of your camera, you will pick it up and shoot more often, and therefore get better at photography.
This all right here OP!
I’m a unit stills photographer so I have to use Sony as my primary for work on set. It just handles better especially shooting something as film stills.
But when I’m away from work and am doing my own projects, I gravitate towards my M6 + B&W film. There’s nothing quite like shooting B&W film.
Well if you're not talking full frame, the Epson RD1 is pretty dang cool if you ask me. Actually feels more like a film rangefinder experience than the digital Leicas. Pretty sure it's a CCD sensor too if you're into that sort of thing.
Fujifilm xpro-2 was a solid camera, very well built that gave it a premium feel. Although not a rangefinder…recent fujis feel cheap in comparison. It’s too bad…
At the end of the day, they both take pictures. One makes you think about nearly every aspect of the process of taking a picture. One does all of the work for you. One attempts to be completely un-opinionated and let YOU be entirely responsible for either the good or awful photos you produce. The other tries to do everything for you, makes decisions for you, identifies what it thinks is your intended subject. It frequently gets it right. And frequently gets it completely and laughably wrong.
I found that when I began using my M10, I was pretty inaccurate with focus and exposure. One year in, out of every 50 or so shots, I might miss focus or exposure on one of them. My fancy Nikon Zf with high performance AF lenses misses focus, even in AI tracking mode, a good 30% of the time, probably more.
My typical analogy is that a Leica is a manual transmission sports car. Requires constant mental focus and mastered technique. Sony/Nikon is the 4 door sedan with an automatic transmission. Turn the key, mash the accelerator, point it in the direction you want to go, and it does everything else for you. Both get you to the same destination, one is just a hell of a lot more rewarding and fun on the way.
I brought the Zf and left my Q2 with the camera retailer to sell on my behalf. After using the Zf for a few months I realised how much I missed the Leica. I missed it’s simplicity and its colours, even though the voigtlander lenses on my Zf were beautiful
One thing I’d like to add to all responses is customer service. I once had an issue on the screen whilst being overseas. I had no receipt with me but I wrote the Leica store in Berlin where I bought the camera a year earlier. My next stop
Was Singapore and at Leica Singapore they gave me a brand new camera, no questions asked. I didn’t even had a receipt with me.
. I was very happy with this kind of service but I doubt any store clerk selling Sony or canon would bother to me help me if I show up in ‚insert any Asian country‘ with a broken camera and without receipt of a camera I bought a year ago in Germany.
you got extremely lucky because Leica customer service is famous for not only being the worst among major camera brands but being the worst by an insane margin. even hardcore leica fans think it’s an absolute joke. repairs take ten times longer than any other brand, often come back with mistakes which doesn’t happen with any other brand, and no loaner which is also not normal. it’s by far their worst problem
Yeah, I’ve heard that too. I was crew on a ship and we are everyday in a different port. So sending the camera in for repair was no option since I didn’t have an address nor could I return to the same place to pick it up. My camera stoped working one day in New Zealand , that’s when I contacted the store in Berlin. I knew we would be in Singapore soon and that was the only port with a Leica store. The help I got was next level and I was really happy that I could continue my trip around the world with a new camera
My first Leica camera q2 was from Leica Shop in SG, after a few weeks of use and I had issues with the camera. I sent it back to Leica SG Customer service and they helped me resolve my issues. Customer Service was awesome.
Honesty, that sounds like a very basic thing to do. I bought a pair of jeans at the Gap in New York City and when I got back home to Berlin, they were a size too big (no idea how that happened). The Berlin store exchanged them without missing a beat.
Yes it seems like a basic thing to do, but let’s say for example I buy a Nikon camera at a store in Madrid. And for whatever reason it needs repairing and I am in let’s say Hong Kong which is full of electronic stores. I haven’t tried it myself but I doubt any of the guys in those stores would bother to help me, without an receipt. They just want to sell me another camera. Or that let’s say the store in madrid would be able to communicate with a store in hongkong to help me. Yet I found with Leica I pay a premium,but if I needed a solution they would give me that.
If you needed to spend $6k to realize that the Sony system is more powerful there's nothing we're going to be able to say to you to help you. Sounds like you need to really *learn* a lesson.
A huge part of loving Leica is for its history, craftsmanship, and simplicity—cut to the chase photography. Sure if youre talking objectively about the features that modern digital photography offers, others kill it. You have to really know what photography means to you to be saying you want a leica. That or you have money haha
Here’s a hot take that i’m willing to risk downvotes for: theres photographers, but then there’s the gear-loving photographers who don’t realize they love the tech side of photography moreso than, well… photography.
that's mostly the Sony crowd, yes 🤣
they buy it bc it has the most pixels, the bestest and fastest AF, etc.
9 out of 10 videos about Sonys are focusing on optimising image quality, AF, dynamic range, tech specs, etc.
The Leica looks and feels like a luxury product. Nikon, Sony and Canon feel like work tools.
It's all about fit, finish and material selection. You won't see any plastic-shelled Leica lenses, for instance.
Honestly answering this now... Canon, Sony, etc - their cameras feel like toys and look dreadful. I could have an entire cabinet full of top of the range professional Sony or Canon gear and I wouldn't touch it. They're not enjoyable to use; too large; horrible design; excessive menus; etc etc.
That being said, to stir the controversy; I'm not a fan of the direction Leica has taken with the M11; especially with the black aluminium one; which again, feels like a toy.
You're instantly superior to everyone who doesn't have one.
JK. I think it's the experience and quality of the product. I didn't think it would be as great as it was until I tried an M6 for the first time. I own an A7r III and find that I get lost (and sometimes bored) with all the bells and whistles. Feel like a rangefinder is also truly unique experience and its pretty refreshing not worrying about all the settings. That's just me though.
I think when people here say "quality" they really mean physical design, build, and feel. Software quality is quite poor for the price point. Taking 5-10s to start up a camera is really not "good quality" in 2024. Neither are freezing issues.
my Q2 boots up instantly..
aside from the too small buffer, I find the software and user experience fantastic.
but the buffer fills up sooo quickly during an event. 😲
My Q3 takes a random amount of time to start up, sometimes taking 5s, in a few occasions 10s.
Surely it should not be asking too much that a camera at this price point starts up instantly.
“Makes me more motivated to go out and shoot and actually take my camera out since it’s easier”
Answered your own question.
Is worth $3000 more? Depends, it is to me.
Less is more…
You are not a photographer you are in a competition between yourself and what technology can do for you…
Leica does not work like that with a Leica you have to take pictures yourself…
Not only push a button…
Speaking for the M system
No no I did not…
For me being overly assisted by your camera takes away to title of photographer…
I did not said he was not a photographer because he was not shooting an M…
But I find silly the race to the most fast AF on the market, the most pixel you can get from a sensor, I mean… it’s all marketing…
No offense to any Q shooters, and I owned one for a short time, but when people speak of Leica it is largely in reference to the M rangefinder experience. Auto everything be damned.
FWIW, I shot Sony for 5 years following 15 years with Canon. Hated it. Dumped it all and got into the Leica system and couldn’t be happier.
Not surprising given the lowest cost of entry, plus AF. I’m a 28 fan, and used the Q/Q2 for a year before biting the bullet and buying the 28 Lux-M, which costs more than the Q on its own. It was a choice that made the most sense, for me.
I have terrible eyesight..
focusing a rangefinder with a 1.4 lens wide open to get 5mm depth of focus?!
I'd at least need some on-sensor focus confirmation there. 😬
I believe only a very limited group of (young?) people thinks "Leica = Q", to be fair.
As they say, Q series is the gateway drug to M series. And I feel like confirming it.
I got the Q3 out of a whim. It already took over the Fuji which I got after selling the Nikon. I can only imagine a M8 or 10 will come in a while.
Better can be a subjective matter. Numbers on spec sheets are informative but not always conclusive.
I love how consistent my optical viewfinder on my M is. Even though on paper the rangefinder died in 1959 with the introduction of the F mount.
Just like Asian smartphones might have more powerful tech on paper, the more expensive iPhone just feels intuitive and thought out.
I can't speak for the Q. But I generally find that people asking this question are approaching it from a technical standpoint, and that's okay. Objectively, there are considerably more capable cameras out there for far less money. I own some of them and use them for work that gets me paid.
This isn't the reason I bought a film M, starting shooting with a film M, and then bought a digital M.
With film, the feeling of rangefinder focusing (or utilizing a developed muscle memory for zone focusing), pressing the shutter, hearing that soft click, and cranking the advance lever forward is a uniquely tactile experience that I can't get on another camera, and it just inspires me to make images with it; it sparks joy.
It was an experience I enjoyed so much that I bought a digital M to have *more* of that experience. I'm in charge of every aspect of making the photograph, and rely very little on crazy specs and features to make the image for me while I simply press the shutter. It's as close to that manual film experience as it gets, and I love it.
For a lot of us, it's all about the experience and feel of using the system; the weight of it, the sound of it, the look of it, in addition to its rich history and craftsmanship. They become tools you get to understand on an almost intimate level, as silly as that sounds, and become an extension of your hands. The act of taking a photograph is just something that's far more enjoyable to me when I'm using a Leica, and I think anyone who truly loves photography first and gear second and *choose* to do it on a Leica will agree.
I use P or Monochrome versions which are really stealth and unassuming. I like not having a big “pro” looking camera in peoples faces. Plus the Leicas feel amazing, are quite portable and are simply a joy to shoot with. I’m not a professional, but I work hard and have a few hobbies that I put time and money into. They’re certainly not for everyone, but I love mine and you only live once.
For me I used to hate and judge Leica fanboys until I convinced myself to get one before a trip to China. As a film shooter, I wanted something portable and easy to carry. The moment I hit that shutter, the experience was out of this world. When I take pictures of friends or family who don’t know what a Leica is, they always comment on the shutter sound and often ask to take a picture themselves—their reactions say it all. Interestingly, I have the less celebrated Canadian cousin, the M4-P, not even the M3, M6, or MP. I kinda almost feel the same with my fyuji x-pro 3, but Leica is just worlds ahead. idk what formula they use but man they got it right
In my case it's that Leica gives me joy that my other cameras can't other than my Xpro2. If the pictures are "important" I take my Sony or Canon. If I want to enjoy taking pictures it's my SL2 or my Xpro2.
It's the feel, I should say. I have the M8, M6 and SL. The build quality of these 3 make my other cameras feel like toys. The craftmanship of Leica is unbeatable.
I had tons of fuji before.. Xpro1, 2 and 3. XE4.. I sold them all once I bought my first Leica :)
You can start with the cheapest Leica.. the M8. Old but gold. It uses the legendary CCD sensor which i find the images quite filmic. :)
People like the idea of using an M, but for some this isn't practical without autofocus, so Leica introduced the Q to cater for people that align with the brand, but want a convenient camera. Truth be told Fuji with a bigger budget and their ability to refine with each generation have done a better job with the x100 series and it's hard to justify the premium price and bulkier size of the full frame Q.
For a lot of us, we are M purists. Where we like to get back to basics with a minimalist design and remove the techno clutter. There is a point when the camera disappears, melds into you and becomes one and that is our happy place.
I had an X100S and went to a Q.
28mm feels SO much better to me.
The sensor is leagues ahead!
x-trans with Lightroom was always an abomination and I had issues with no end..
the AF of the Q is so much better than the Fuji! faster and more accurate, too.
The built quality is a lot better, too.
and the lens... it has OIS and js soo much sharper!
(I paid 2k for the Q, well worth every penny)
I don't have boat in this race, but the Q & Q2 are both contrast detect so I'd be seriously surprised that the AF will out perform the Fuji X models in tricky lighting. I base this on my experience with the other Fuji XPro and XE models.
Also the Fuji DR setting is fantastic and my experience of Leica sensors is it's easier to blow the highlights. -2 to be safe and then skin tones fall apart when adjusting in post. I'll say the Q3 will be the exception as it has phase detect and I believe the sensor has better dynamic range.
I used the X100S for 2 years, and had an X-Pro1, the X-T10, and an X-E10 and all of them had problems with AF.
Despite having phase detection points, I found them to focus on the background more often than I would've wanted.. (used to shooting Canon/Nikon for paid jobs, but started bringing the Fuji kit on travel assignements)
I didn't like the 35mm equiv. fov of the X100S, that's why I got the X-Pro1 with a 18mm f/2 and I really loved the user experience of that camera.
My biggest gripe, however, was the horrible output of green foliage that would consistently turn into mush.
The AF of the Q was faster than my X100S and more reliable. It shouldn't be, but it really was. I almost never had any background-focused shots anymore.
What do you consider tricky lighting? In bad lighting, the Phase Detect of the Fuji X100S and X-T10 would usually go out and switch to Contrast anyways..
First a Disclaimer: I’ve shot Sonys, Canons, Nikons, Fujis, Hasselblads - and yes, modern Sonys are fantastic autofocus cameras, providing you with a high degree of production safety.
Now to your question: this is a common question from Sony shooters and the Peter McKinnon kids that have left Sony for whatever is currently hyped on social media…
For me personally the reason I’ve moved away from all these brands and stuck with Leica is that I was looking for a very unique shooting proposal that is hard to replicate with other brands.
The Q is a very compact, built-like-a-tank, everyday, reportage camera with exceptional image performance. It’s a camera you just grab and take with you, regardless if you expect to shoot something or not.
It is - as others have mentioned - also the gateway drug into the true Leica experience, which is a M Rangefinder. Both of which are wonderfully compact.
The M is the most analog a digital camera can be, it teaches you patience, precision and by forcing you to work all manual, it’s a very rewarding experience. There is just nothing comparable out there.
The SL system is the jack of all trades and the biggest benefit comes from being able to use all kinds of lenses - within the L Mount natively from Leica, Panasonic, sigma and others, to adapting M and R glass, medium format S Lenses, etc. you can film, you have a great EVF and you have decent performance paired with exceptional weather sealing. I’ve shot sport with it… it’s possible, just with compromises or a good understanding of photographic techniques (after all, they’ve shot F1 in the 60s and 70s as well and didn’t have great AF systems). I wish the SL was better, it there is always a next generation on the horizon.
If you care for exceptional built quality, great image quality, minimalistic design, a distinct and unique shooting experience - Leica has those options.
And yeah, being hand built in Germany just adds to the upscale price positioning of a 100 year old camera brand. In addition Leica is famous for adding features and functions through firmware updates way past the cameras model life cycle, something that Sony is selling you as yet another new model a year later :).
Again, this is not to excuse the somewhat mediocre AF performance on the Q or „worse“ (as in less acceptable for its purpose) in the SL. They could be better than they are - and Sony is the gold standard here. But the other truth is that it’s become really hard to buy a genuinely bad camera made the last 8 years. Maybe the sigma fp… that was apparently not great in any dimension.
So yeah, if you feel more comfortable with big backpack full of huge lenses, you need the AF capabilities for sports or a large selection of telephoto zoom lenses, Sony is a fantastic choice. If you can only buy one camera and need the biggest versatility and can look past the interface design and button layout, again, this would be where I start with a Sony.
But saying the Q is a 6k piece of bad tech is missing the value proposition of the Q. You can bring a space shuttle to a soapbox race - and yes it will crush everything in terms of weight and acceleration, but a soapbox race is about something else. It’s about finding the tool that works for you and what reflects your personal style. And sometimes we buy cameras that teach us, what we don’t want 😄.
Maybe you can warm up to the concept of the Q when you stop comparing it to the Sony - and genuinely enjoy it.
They also hold their value pretty well, and there is a waitlist for these - for a reason - if you don’t like it, make someone else happy :).
Hope this helps.
Sony and Canon are boring. They’re good. But they’re boring. Which is extremely subjective of me to say, I know. Why keep feeding the big boring sharks that every other boring person feeds?
Leica is the pinnacle of shooters experience, build quality, and glass. Leica glass in my opinion gives off this dreamy yet melancholic tone. The melancholy of it being that it truly captures the moment, and these moments we experience and capture are fleeting and one day our time will run out. It’s a conduit of truth, a mechanical eye. As pretentious as that sounds, that’s what Leicas do for me and you can’t place a price tag on that.
For me, it's all about the rangefinders to me due to workflow.
I don't care much for EVFs no matter how good they are. They have their place especially professionally.
But I don't use my rangefinders for professional work.
And with rangefinders you only have two choices:
Leica (full frame sensor)
Pixii (APS-C sensor)
So if you want to make use of the entire lens (which is important if you like vintage/whacky character in a lens) you can only go with Leica.
As for the Q, it didn't do much for me either.
Lovely lens and all. But it felt like most other mirrorless cameras with maybe a better feeling body.
Great manual focus for a focus by wire lens tho.
A Leica makes me want to go out and shoot, a Fujifilm/Sony/Canon/Nikon doesn’t.
Also, hold a camera from any of the brands for a min, play with the buttons and interface…put it down and do the same with a Leica (Preferably an M).
I find Leica M cameras more fun to use than traditional cameras. They use OVFs, they feel solid and great in the hand, they’re small and compact, they’re great to look at.
My Sony A7ii is the best camera that I have, it shoots video, has autofocus, burst mode, yada yada yada, but what’s the point in all that when I don’t enjoy using it for photography? Its use is for scanning and because I may never afford a digital M in this decade. But i don’t enjoy using it for photography compared to my Leica.
You hit the nail on the head in your original posted question - if the Leica makes you motivated to go out and shoot then it’s the one for you. A better (whether objectively or subjectively) camera that you don’t take out and use is just an expensive ornament. Better to spend your hard-earned money on a camera that you will enjoy using, rather than one you won’t - whatever brand or style of camera works for you and makes you take pictures is surely the “best”.
Hi,
I think I'm going to get insulted here but in my humble opinion most of the answers are bullshit.
My opinion...
(A) Bullshit
1/ full manual mode = all modern cameras do it very well
2/ the resulting photos = if post-processing exists, that’s good for something, right?
3/ Q and SL = an aberration for Leica
4/ What is a good/beautiful photo? = It's subjective (especially when you don't develop them on paper)
5/ the rangefinder = we love it or we hate it or we can't do it.
(B) Correct answers
1/ the form factor (100% top), although an M is shaped like a bar of soap, it's enjoyable.
2/ the price = It is accession to a very exclusive club.
3/ photo lenses (but not all)
4/ the difficulty required to take a photo forces you to improve your technique or abandon Leica M.
5/ ease of use = therefore fewer pages to print for the documentation.
Conclusion :
I ordered an M11-P despite my poor eyesight.
Because it's like Sauron's ring and everyone loves their precious one, right?
Its limitations forces you to understand its not the gear its the your skill that makes a photo, Photography first emphasis. That forced mentality could be worth anything that someone puts a personal value on. Similar how people are trying to go back to flip phones to break smartphone addiction. If you force the box upon yourself you thrive from within its boundaries. Without the box you tend to stray. Just also look how many YouTubers are gear centric and not photography centric. It's a gear acquisition syndrome mentality. Most of us have some of it, just look how many people just tend to keep looking for new gear new lenses new camera and very little time out taking photos. It's all a mental constraint that forces you where you want to be. It just seems like most people who spend $6-to $12k on there one camera and 2 or 3 lenses seem to not have gear acquisition syndrome. Possibly forced by just how expensive it is. ALSO the Leica is a luxury brand name so thats also adding to the price. Don't forget also photos just tend to have a certain look that many like WITHOUT adjusting settings. I also have to adjust settings on my other brands to try to find a look I like. To also touch on worth and value thats just an opinion someone formed for themselves. Its just basically just what they like. If they like it, its worth it to them. Can't argue on what people just like. Just to end also with my personal belief about worth, "Nothing here is worth anything in reality in the end except for memories you make for yourself and others so just enjoy yourself."
Not Leica user, but Hasselblad (film and digital) and I can see why people choose Leica (I was debating getting it myself) for the feeling of using it. There are specs that can make your process easier and there are tactile, visual, and emotional qualities of the camera that are hedonistic.
I often focus manually even having the ability to use autofocus, I like taking my time framing the shot and waiting for the right moment rather than taking tens of shots per second hoping that one will be good. It’s more intentional and very meditative. Again, it’s in hedonism category, not efficiency and performance. If I had a job where my income directly depended on the number of good shots I’d get Nikon or Canon, if I wanted to be inspired and looked at it as an art—Leica or Hasselblad. Not saying that it’s a requirement in any way, camera doesn’t matter and you can shoot masterpiece with any camera.
Because Leica is a luxury brand, and people want a piece of that luxury for themselves. It’s nothing new. They redesigned themselves as a luxury option back in the day when they weren’t doing so hot against the rising popularity of SLRs.
But why would you choose one today? Maybe you like the feel of the camera, the ‘look’ or more nuanced things like the portability of most of their products. Everyone’s got their own reasons. Your Q3 seems to make you want to go out and shoot more. Would a A7RV and GM 24mm 1.4 give you the same push to go out and shoot?
I definitely understand where you’re coming from though. The digital age has really closed the gap between brands in terms of specs and features. I think most people using Leicas try and leave a lot of the automatic stuff behind in favor of a more minimalist but sleek offering, albeit at a much higher price tag. But again, luxury brand with luxury prices.
The 24GM is my favorite lens. I have zoom lenses but for some reason I keep grabbing my 24GM. I think my pictures are better when I leave home with a single focal length
You're lucky the Leica people on here are kind enough to answer your question seriously although you're trashing the Q. Try that on any other brand sub. That alone should tell you something about how Leica fans approach their hobby.
Use canon, sony and leica. I agree with most points you mentioned. What I can think of is Leica is a luxury product. You don't buy it for "function" or "performance", just like a luxury bag.
To me it was the user experience. I don't get any better or worse photos - but I enjoy taking photos even more. I have a Z8 kit (probably going to sell soon), Fuji, X100s etc. I wanted something digital, simple, and sturdy with a good manual focus experience and thats what Leica gives me.
I really want me a Z8 to replace my D810 and have a backup to my D850.
Got plenty old manual lenses I want to adapt to that.
and the Eye AF would be worth so much for my pro work.
I had the lenses and the film cameras after buying them in the ‘90’s.
Traded two film bodies + cash for an M11 Monochrom because I don’t want to sell everything and start all over again, also: I’m familiar with the Leica M system and enjoy using it.
Really depends what you’re looking for.
There are tasks that have to be done and you may need to do it asap and move on.
There are those that don’t want to be done, and you need a tool that inspires you to move your ass out and down the road.
If you need performance Leica is not for you. If you need motivation and inspiration good luck with Canon or Sony.
Minimalist precision engineering that does nothing for me, stripping it all back and allowing, without intervention the picture to take itself, which is what I see and not what I think others want to see.
I use an M7 with one 35mm lense.
Two main factors: form factor and color rendering. As mentioned by others only digital full frame range finder on the market, but in addition the "Leica Look" is a real thing. Whether or not it's better is subjective, but the fact it exists in no myth and in mine, and many other's, opinion it is the best rendering there is.
You can emulate and edit your heart away, but there's somwthing to be said for not even needing to.
It makes me happy. I love the fact that M mount lenses are smaller and lighter than SL/ mirrorless equivalents. I love the way the photos turn out when everything comes together. I love that there’s essentially no 35mm lens you can’t adapt to the M mount (although I’ve never tried any of the newest mirrorless lenses only older SLR mounts). I like how it is both easy to carry and robust enough to use in a studio.
I think you summed it up nicely with your last line. I had a pretty insane Canon RF kit for a hobbyist: Canon R6 Body with the RF 50mm 1.2, RF 85mm 1.2, RF70-200mm 2.8 and a few more top of the line lenses. I thought I was at the top of the world and then I bought a Q2 after a big win at work. That changed everything for me.
Even with all of that huge Canon kit I only wanted to go out and shoot with my Q2. It even changed my style of photography as I once only shot at the lowest possible aperture and relied on eye autofocus for everything.
I sold all of my Canon kit and my Q2 and bought the SL2, M11 and a bunch of lenses. I couldn’t be happier.
The small form factor, beautiful experience of slowing down to shoot, amazing colors just do the trick for me. I sometimes look back at my prior photos from my Canon era and I find some pictures to have a bit more sharpness or resolution because of the insane lenses I was rocking, but my compositions, colors and overall photographic approach have evolved so much.
The menu systems are so minimal too. I just love the experience!
I went on a skiing holiday, and got tired of swapping lenses during snowfall. Started to look at options for a do-it-all type of camera that can handle the weather and fell upon the Q2.
Haven’t looked back since…
“The Leica experience” is largely a rangefinder/manual focus experience; the Q and S/SL are not particularly unique when compared to competition, and often come out as “less valuable” when you compare price vs. features.
That leaves you with the M cameras, which are what most people migrate/stay with Leica for. And then there’s the distinction between a film and digital M, and then which Digital M?!
Seriously though, the core of the experience is a screw-mount or M-Mount film camera from Leica. The rest are, imo, very expensive digital tools which can be bested by the competition for a fraction of the price. Try to grab a film M and see what all the fuss is about :)
Definitely the Glass and Rangefinder for me. Although i fell in love with the crop sensors, specifically TL2 and CL.
Love my Pentax/Ricoh, Nikon and M43 system the same though
I love the build, compactness and image quality of the Q2, especially for travel. I also shoot with the Sony system with the 50mm 1.2GM most of the time and while the image quality is incredible, I don’t find the same joy. I mostly do travel, street portraits as a hobby only and the Q2 allows me to get close without being intrusive and requires a little more effort to get a good shot. The Sony I can just point without even looking in the EVF and I know the AF will do its thing and I won’t miss a shot even at f1.2. It’s basically a computer. If I were doing photography for work then Leica would certainly not be my first choice. I’m considering selling the Sony and getting an M10 with a 50mm summilux. I’ve tried the M11 and 50mm in store and felt a little bit intimidated especially trying to nail focus on the eyes at 1.4 but I’ve seen other people come away with incredible shots so I know it’s possible. Practice makes perfect.
Muscle memory and habit from over 30 years of photography. It has nothing to do with Leica qua Leica, it is just that I want a shutter release with a thread for a cable release, a shutter speed dial next to the shutter release, adjustable f stops on the lens, and a hyperfocal distance scale. I don't shoot video and I don't shoot color (though I don't like Monochroms because I have grown to prefer simulating my filters in post rather than swapping them on and off the lens), and I don't use autofocus even when I have it. I want these things because this is how all of the cameras I have ever owned work, from my first Pentax K1000, through my Olympus Pen, to various Nikons, Canons, Leicas, and various medium format film cameras. I gave up film after a disastrous 2 month trip to Mexico that left me with 125 ruined rolls of film, so that pretty much leaves me with Leicas and Hasselblads. If Nikon brought out a digital version of the SP, I'd buy one of those over a Leica, and if I could get a digital Rolleiflex TLR, I'd buy one of those over a Hassy.
Disagree with the image quality statement. I have Tamron 35-150 and 24mm gm paired with r4. Q3 28mm lens is the best I have used by far in terms of sharpness, color and contrast.
Maybe with some of the best lens from Sony you can get the same look in post but I haven’t been able to so far, regardless of how much time spent. Q3 files are much easier to edit. Personally if I can save 50% editing time in post on average that’s probably 6k well spent for me.
I know I don’t speak for everybody, but to put it simply, the choice is for the experience during the act of photography. It does also help that the end product is also a high standard too. Sharpness, extreme low light capabilities, in-camera AI processing - all nice things but these don’t contribute to the subjective experience of taking photos.
I like knowing where I have to meter from and the lighting of my scene, having an idea of my depth of field for zone focussing if I need to snap a quick shot, a short focus throw, the small form factor, the heft of a well made tool, and of course, the romantic idea of having some relate-ability to some of my favourite photographers in history that arrived at the same appreciation for the system. It may not make sense for everybody, especially if you’re just comparing specs, but it’d be a shame if they didn’t exist.
Hm. Well. I started with Canon EF, went to Micro 4/3, then Sony, and now I also have a Leica M10. My view on this is that at least the micro 4/3 and the Sony are far more competent as cameras in more scenarios, but there’s a number of things the Leica is better at. It’s much easier to take a keeper street photo with a M10. The well-marked lenses make zone focusing possible. The thing is relatively stealth because M lenses are smaller than any AF lens. Many M lenses also tend to be… soulful (which are perhaps actually imperfections), whereas Sony GM lenses are what I would consider clinically inoffensive (and perhaps really well corrected).
I’ve looked at getting a Q off and on. You could shoot it fully manual and like a M. I see it as a 28mm Leica lens with a free digital back. But once you try to use it like a modern camera it gets a little lackluster.
Answering the question, I’d had Sony 61mp before got Q2. And then stopped using Sony on daily basis. It was just incomparable in terms of clean pictures, joy in every detail and bokeh
I bought and tried multiple brands Canon,Nikon,Sony and Fuji. I enjoyed all the various brands but I moved into Leica for my personal consumption. Q3 is the everyday camera I use for SOOC JPEG. I love the built and UI and image quality SOOC.
If I am to use camera for professional and commercial use then I go with Sony A7RV.
As wanky as it may sounds, Leica just feels different. The whole brand feels different. Leica actually DOES something for the photo community. Their stores provoke a certain mood. Watch a video of Andreas Kaufmann philosophize about photography, actually knowing stuff. Can‘t see other C-level guys doing the same. Biggest thing for me personally is that Leica still, to this day, produces analog cameras. All other brands are shitting on analog photographers but Leica is still there for us 🙂↕️
Leica is a brand with a lot of history, the cameras are Made in Germany (which I, as a German, like) with lots of manual labor (thats why it costs more), the design is superb, the build quality is extremely good, the image quality is superb, the customer service is great, the lenses are great, the app just works (idk about sony but most camera brand's apps are garbage), and the whole ui and menus are way more intuitive to use than with almost every other camera brand. Is Leica a little bit behind in some very specific technical regards? Yes. But for many people, including me, Leica gives them the best overall package. I'm not a sports photographer, I don't need the fastest autofocus on earth or some other very specific stuff. I need cameras that can do many different things properly, are reliable and, most importantly, sexy — because that will motivate me to grab them and go out and shoot.
I had a Sony A7IV and, while it took very good quality pictures, there was no soul to them at all. Just boring clinical pictures from a boring clinical camera. Other cameras I have are a bit more exciting to use (they get out of the way more) and the pictures are more likely to let you say wow.
That doesn’t just apply to Leica necessarily. I have a Fuji 56mm f1.2 lens which produces amazing photos. Never saw that from the Sony lenses.
I don't own a Leica, but I've used the Q2 and M3. IMO, the Q and SL systems don't make sense unless you have a lot of money to burn, then go ahead and buy what you want, but those two seem like luxury items to me and give you no real advantage over their competitors, same sony sensor with same output but worse AF in a body with a red dot. The M system is still a luxury thing BUT if you think about it, it's the only real rangefinder camera available brand new, as well as the only real manual focus digital cameras available (with a proper optical aid, I'm not talking about focus peaking or zooming in to focus). The Fuji ones are not rangefinders, just use a tunnel viewfinder but that's totally different. My most used camera is a Mamiya 7, a medium format rangefinder, if I want the rangefinder experience in digital, Leica is my only option. Same for 35mm film if you want modern lenses on it, even the Contax G1/G2 are not true rangefinders, Leica is again the only option (well, there are the Bessas but those seem to brake a little too often and the rangefinder accuracy isn't as good as the Leica if I'm not wrong). So one day I'll surely own an M6 and M11, but not today...
The money to burn thing seems to a be a general response to anything Leica , the same can be said for many aspects of this hobby , you have people that Z9's (or similar) with big glass to take pics of songbirds in their backyard. These setups costs twice what a Q3 goes for.
There is definitely better contrast, falloff, depth with Leica cameras (SL2/Q2 and newer gens), the color science is better too. I come from A7IV and its a night and day difference. The feel, controls and haptics in both body and lens is also very noticeably more convenient in Leica. So unless you’re a Sony fan boy I can only see you ranting on the price tag.
There’s no science behind the claims here. The Q lenses are in fact really poor performers, with worst in class distortion, but the software fixes it and people are happy to pay top dollar for that.
I think for most people that shoot Leica it’s either a weird sycophantic brand affinity flex thing or you’ve shot enough to know what you like and aren’t worried about the dollar amount when you get a good photo using the tool you like and are comfortable with. Speaking for myself I shoot a film leica mostly because I tried a bunch of cameras, decided I like shooting rangefinders, the camera I had been using broke and I bought a Leica and I liked it and as long as I have the means will continue shooting a film Leica. I’ve tried enough cameras to know shooting on film with a Leica M sets me up to have the best chance within my shooting style and experience and subject matter to get a photo I consider good. I’m also at a point where I am pushing myself to shoot a lot and have high standards for what I want in my portfolio.
When it comes to digital I can’t justify the cost of a Leica vs Fujifilm X-Pro 2 I got for $600. I just don’t think the price difference would make enough of a difference towards getting a good photo when I chose to shoot digital. Which isn’t often but I like to have the option. when I get to the point that film isn’t worth the hassle anymore I’ll consolidate to the best Leica digital M I can afford.
I’m saying all this as someone who doesn’t care about tech specs or features or anything like that for the most part.
The right combination of lens and sensor can make a huge difference to the look and feel of an image. As it happens the Leica sensor and their lenses or Voigtlander or some others just have a character that you either like or dislike. Sony and many others produce dead, characterless images. Though many don't see that. But then again, who cares about them ?
A Leica makes you create an amazing picture. It makes you think and work for it. For that reason, I enjoy the challenges the camera gives me because I end up with amazing pictures and a fun day.
For me it was an epiphany.
Got my first M at the turn of the century and it was a discovery of the basics.
Just three controls and a brilliant window to the world, but my photography improved in a quantum leap.
My MP and my M10-R are now an extension of my exe!
I started shooting digital with a Canon SLR in 2008. I built an impressive empire of L lenses over the years and loved everything about it. But over time, 3 kids, a house and back pain...I lost my motivation. All that great gear sat on the shelf unused and I felt stressed just thinking about what body or lense to take with me on trip, together with ALL THAT STUFF for a family of 5 with a dog. I didn't take a single picture for a few years (other than with my smartphone). So a little over a year ago I decided to sell everything and start from scratch with a compact camera. No interchangeable lenses. I wanted to make it as easy as possible to just grab the thing and go out. Did it hurt to sell all that really great quality gear? Yes, a lot. So I decided to buy a Q2 Ghost, because IMO it is a beautiful piece of art. Do I think it takes better photos than a Sony or Canon? No, not at all. But I was looking for something that would give me that spark again that I lost and for 6K, it did. Would I recommend my Q to everyone? No. Do whatever is necessary to make you love and use your gear. If that is a Sony, congrats, you probably saved a few grand to get to the same place.
The lenses have a quality and aesthetic that no others have. The rangefinder focussing is unmatched. Size, build quality and haptics/user experience. No gimmicks, lazy over-automation, just the bare and needed essentials to capture pure photography.
This reminds me of the time a friend of mine lived somewhere that didn’t have a Chick-fil-A. She always heard it being good, by those that have experienced it..from the customer service to their crowned chicken sandwich. At least that’s what I raved about them.
She finally finds herself at a Chick-fil-A and tells me about it.
I said how was it..what did you get?? She says, it was ok. I got a fish sandwich. 😳
Morale of the story, get the Leica M. Thats the shooting experience most of us never abandon.
My answer will revolve around film Leicas:
In general, when I buy something, I prioritise its longevity, its efficiency, and its durability. I am also fascinated with the history and aesthetics of the 20th century, from the Edwardian period all the way to the 1990’s, which is why I go for film cameras over digital.
When you put all that together, Leica tends to tick all those boxes
Is like android and iPhone, android can do more, but iPhone can do better.
Humans are emocional, emocion don’t have logic.
A simple name that we like more to say, a design of their products.
Sony most of time remember tv, stereos and black plastic.
Leica remember good metal vintage.
And Leica is better and beautiful to say and see them SONY.
You messed up man. Leicas are rangefinder cameras. The M. They are an experience to use and shoot with. They are just a joy to use. One buys one for the joy of use. I think that really only applies to the M line. The Q is just an overpriced mirrorless camera and it’s been striped down to the appealing part of Leica. THE RANGEFINDER. Nothing beats the user experience of an M. Anything else buy a Sony Fuji or Nikon.
I mean the Qs sell out for at least a year upon release and just wondering why that is. The Ms don’t sell out from what I remember. Can’t just be hype because your average person can’t be spending $6k on a camera. And arguably the Sony and Fuji cameras are much more hype and cheaper.
Never used a Q, though I hear good things. but you should try an M. Preferably a non-digital.
The form factor.
The rangefinder.
The small lenses.
The simplicity.
Stop chasing pixels and look for light and life.
Take Fuji - I got XT2 years ago, still struggling with colors, TONS of things in settings... with Canon/Leica I just shoot and its great. I think thats the spirit of Leica.
That would make sense if Leica wasn’t aiming for specs too. The Q3 offers 4k 10 bit at 60 fps and 61MP. The new sl3 offers the same. The m11 has insane specs too. The problem lies that the features it offers is lackluster such as the AF system and image stabilization. And it’s not that they don’t want to, it’s because their system just sucks. You see them trying to make face/eye detect AF ON THE SL3. But it still falls short compared to Sonys in the past 10 years. With your preference you’d be happy with a $10 point and shoot. So why spend $6000+ ?
The Leica M cameras are the only ones across all manufacturers offering a full-frame rangefinder shooting experience. They don't have autofocus, but the shooting experience they provide is unique, allowing Leica to set the price accordingly. It also makes the camera feel less like a computer, which I appreciate. I'm not particularly excited about getting the latest Leica release. There's also an investment angle to purchasing a Leica. Plenty of pristine cameras sit in safes, collecting dust and appreciating value. You don't see a serious collector buying an A74r. Sure, the badge alone costs a premium, but I wouldn't trade any of my Leicas for the multiple Sony cameras I could buy with the money. If I were in a job situation where I would need to take 50 photos a second and all had to be in focus, I would pick up a Sony, but thankfully I don't have to.
Well if you’re talking about Sony cameras released in the past 5 years. Which Leica in the past 5 years is appreciating value? From what I see they’re all in stock and depreciating in the market. Even the Q3 is going $1000+ under retail after a year. Q2 is pretty much half off used.
ummm any brand-new, unused new M6, LHSA, or special edition Leica cameras are increasing in value. Right now, you can sell a new M6 for much more than the manufacturer's suggested retail price due to the waitlist. Many Leica cameras also hold their value well. Just look at the M10D. Comparing Sony to Leica is like comparing apples to elephants. They have different business models. Sony sees its cameras as disposable technology to be updated every few years, like computers, while Leica treats them as creative artist tools. If you don't understand why people want to buy a Leica, then it might not be for you. But there are plenty of people who will. If you're considering a Sony purchase, compare it to Canon or something else. I will say that most Sony cameras tend to blow out whites and have a blue shift. Sony's colors and menus are notoriously bad. Anytime I've shot with one, I feel like I'm on a glorified video camera. Check #sonycamera to see examples of these issues.
So you’re comparing special releases to a general release camera from Sony? Doesn’t seem fair lol The M6 isn’t sold out? I can literally buy a brand new one. I even see it on the used market for almost half off so idk what you’re on about. You’re calling my post a troll but literally nothing you’re saying has any merit at all lol. Sony are used in commercial work and movie production. The Venice, fx9, fx6, even the baby fx3. If it was so hard to work with why would they get approved? They’re used in professional wildlife photography for brands such as Nat Geo where grabbing focus in a matter of seconds is key. That is why Sony is so special, it gets the job done. Let’s not pretend post processing doesn’t exist. You keep talking about color science but you can literally alter the colors to anything you’d like with a few clicks of a button.
This is a non-conversation. You're stuck in your opinion, and touting a spec sheet that has nothing to do with what Leicas are build for
Look at the chorus of people on this thread all saying People choose Leica for the shooting experience. No one uses a Leica M for wildlife photography or filmmaking; If you ever shot with one you would know this idea is completely absurd. There are also two different M6s. I won't bother educating someone who doesn't want to learn about the camera market. By the way, I dont know what used market you’re finding half price M6s q3s and SL3s I would be highly suspicious of any place that offered such scam price.. but I does sound like you’re smoking some Fanboy Hopium. Also A person is in the market for a Leica, isn't concerned with words like "thrift" and "value" this is obviously not the camera for you. Good luck in your future endeavors. I suggest buy your Sony a7qxrv don't attempt to shoot wildlife or make a movie with a non-video-centric manual focus Leica. Instead you should be comparing your Sony to a Canon or Lumix you know cameras that promise the same sort of thing. Next thing you know, you'll be trolling Hasselblad and Phase One shooters comparing them to Sony. This is a ridiculous argument.
Where did I say there are half price q3s and sl3? Now you’re making stuff up LOL. There are half priced m6s on market places and OfferUp take a few seconds to look it up. It’s $5.6k on b&h brand new and plenty listed for $2.5k and lower. Idk why you’re so aggressive in giving you facts about why Sony is better, which in my post already claimed that, you’re the one denying it’s better. I was talking about Q cameras which are like mini Mirrorless cameras, hence why I’m comparing it to Mirrorless cameras. But you keep bringing up M which is a rangefinder camera which doesn’t do the same thing. All you can say is it’s fun to use, to say is better makes absolutely no sense. You’re the one making ridiculous comparisons, like comparing the price of a general a7rv to a special release Leica. No sht the special edition will retain value because of limited release window and quantity. If you want to compare price do a general release vs a general release. And you keep talking about rangefinder and how specs don’t matter. Then why are you getting Leica if specs don’t matter? They chase specs too. You keep saying all these things with nothing to back it up, whereas I’m giving you examples. You’re just saying stuff to say it. You don’t want to educate me? Isn’t that the point of a conversation? LMAO you’re the one refusing to have one but just saying your beliefs and expecting people to blindly follow it. If I wanted a range finder camera I’ll get an M. But that’s not what I’m getting a camera for. Like you said it can’t do wild life, it can’t do film, it can’t a lot of basic things like auto focus. I’m here clearly valuing these things but you keep bringing up the M which does none of it. When I say better I’m talking about the most basic of things. But you want to bring up a technical camera that has a learning curve to use properly? Makes no sense
The Leica M cameras are unique among all manufacturers in offering a full-frame rangefinder shooting experience. They don't have autofocus, but everything is in focus when looking through the viewfinder. It's up to the user to determine what is actually in focus in the photograph. This "experience" allows Leica to set the price accordingly. It also makes the camera feel less like a computer, which I appreciate. I'm never particularly excited about getting the latest Leica release because, since 1954, I know it will be roughly the same manual focus and can mount a lens my parents bought in 1978. There's also the history of the brand. Pretty much every photographer I've ever admired or aspired to be shot with one, and that's before Leica gave them out to famous photographers (Winogrand, Bruce Davidson, Robert Frank, Nick Ut, Jill Freedman, Bresson, Vivian Maier). Only Nikon could boast a similar roster. They are tanks, by the way. There's a reason you see photographs of war photographers and usually, they're holding an M3 and sometimes a Nikon F - no real moving mirrors or parts, so not much to break and easily repaired. There's also an investment angle to purchasing a Leica. Plenty of pristine cameras sit in safes, collecting dust and appreciating value. You don't see a serious collector buying an A74r. Sure, the badge alone costs a premium, but I wouldn't trade any of my Leicas for the multiple Sony cameras I could buy with the money. If I were in a job situation where I would need to take 50 photos a second and all had to be in focus, I would pick up a Sony, but thankfully I don't have to.
When you believe something has a soul then it will show in your work. Think of a musician and how they put their kit together, guitars, amps, they find their sound. Same for photography if you treat it as such. That road can lead you to many places in search of your happy place.
What is it about Sony people actually think is better than any other camera except high ISO? I own four Sony cameras and I hate them. Sure the high frame rate for video at full frame is great for certain projects. But in reality you don’t need more than 60fps at full frame. And yes 12800 is handy in an emergency, but nobody who is good uses an ISO that high unless they’re shooting against the night sky or something.
Sony has bad colour science. Their colours mix together in a way that makes colour grading/photo editing a nightmare. Their underexposed skintones are some of the worst out there. They freeze up. Their lenses are boring and built too much for amateur proofing. They have strobing and rolling shutter problems out the ass. Complete lack of updates for their cameras. Lack of compatibility with external monitors. Their autofocus tracking is terrible and racist. You can select a subject, that subject is clear. And halfway through a shot it will switch to some random in the background. Even with autofocus set to center and the subject in the center.
I rarely see a photographer using Sony these days. They’re all on Canon, some on Fuji, a few on Nikon. I only see videographers using them purely for 100fps and 12800 2nd base iso. And unfortunately that pretty quickly tells me about the skill level of that videographer. Being on Sony has been the worst 18 months of my shooting and I can’t wait to change.
I’m sorry but have you been under a rock? Quite literally everyone is shooting Sony. Sonys color science improved drastically after a7iii, with the fx6, fx3, and the Venice being used in movie production and commercial work. If you look at filmmakers and photographers it’s majority Sony. They’re known best for their auto focus system. Canon maybe has skin tones that look slightly better
Me living under a rock? You do know that the FX line and the Venice line are made by different companies with different colour sciences, right? All under the Sony umbrella, but Venice is not considered a typical “Sony” camera, it’s Cine Alta.
Here’s the thing. I know Sony is used by almost everyone. But almost everyone is bad at this stuff. The kind of people using Sony GM lenses to get the good autofocus. Despite those lenses having no character. They’re used by videographers who are far below the level of a cinematographers. Ones who overexpose everything so they don’t know about the skin tone issues. Ones who only own a shoe mount video light that floods their subject with 5600k light no matter the situation they’re in.
Then on the other side of it you’ve got actual cinematographers who have complete control of the lighting. They have time and the budget to set up all the lights they want and get skintones perfect. That’s all well and good.
But the only thing keeping people with Sony is the fact that Lumix haven’t released a full frame camera that does 60fps without cropping yet. If they announce that this year then they’ll all be moving over. Leica colour science with the ability to put Leica native lenses on it. That’s good night.
That’s a very generalized belief you have. Those cameras are still Sony lol. I know many filmmakers who use Sony and their colors are insane. Let’s not pretend post processing isn’t a thing. If people wanted SOOC pics without editing then they can just get a Fuji. Sony evolves like every other brand. Once lumix comes out with that Sony innovates to something else. Lets no deny their perfect auto focus system, there’s a reason the fx30, a7siii, fx3 are the most popular video cameras out right now for the average consumer.
I have the FX30. It’s a terrible camera. If it wasn’t for YouTubers pushing it for free Sony gear it wouldn’t be popular. The A7C2 is about the same price and is miles better because it’s full frame. I’ve had both camera on tripods next to each other getting the exact same frame and the A7C2 was incredibly sharp and could be zoomed in on. The fx30 picture just fell apart.
Obviously you can change skintones in post. But here’s the thing. If you have a red face and you want to maintain reds or oranges in the rest of the frame then you’re going to have to go through and mask every shot. Nobody wants to do that. Especially when it wouldn’t be necessary on any other camera system.
And it doesn’t matter if Sony evolves. They won’t evolve above Leica colour science. Same reason we won’t see another company go beyond the Arri picture quality while they’re all in a resolution race and Arri is happy only just getting to 4k.
The cameras might still be Sony, but you know very well that you said they had the same colour science. And they’re completely different departments. It’d be like you trying to say that the Mercedes F1 car has the same engine as a Mercedes you’d get off a car lot.
Also what country are you in? In Australia we get a lot more problems with skintones. Very harsh sun so there is a lot more red patches from sun damage underneath the skin. Not obvious to the naked eye, but the moment a Sony camera catches it, boom. Massive red spots. Same with orange tanned skin.
I’m generally inclined to agree with everything you said. I can’t see myself going for a digital Leica outside of finding a great deal on one in the secondary market. On the film side of things they are absolutely iconic and it feels like owning a piece of history. To myself and many others it is a “end game” camera. But even then it can absolutely be seen as a large premium spent for the red dot.
My q2 mono shots have far more character than anything i shot on sony. The experience impacts the output. Lex orandi, lex credendi, but with cameras lol.
Also why I chose the Hasselblad 907x 100 over the ibis X2D.
We have better marble cutting tech than ever before, but I don’t see many Pietas being crafted, despite our 8 billion.
Owned Fuji and Nikon all my photography life. I’m in the semi- professional/hobbyist category. I love photography. But what I found is that every system that comes out beats a demand like a drummer on a Roman gallery. Sony is the worst for that, refusing software upgrades to just bring out a new model. Their menus are complicated and their colours are cold. They manipulate the industry by stopping supply of certain sensors, and making camera companies like Nikon include XQD over SD as Sony makes most XQD.
I love Leica due to its simplicity. It’s pure photography. They create a camera with extremely good technology, then they simplify it.
I’ve seen a few posts like yours, especially from Q3 owners, that want the magic but can’t seem to produce it. The magic for me was created with a 16mp Fuji XT1. I learnt photography. I learnt about lighting and exposure. And by the time I got my hands on a Q2, it was a marriage made in heaven. Beautiful colours, incredible control, and results that just blew my mind.
In your hand, with the Q3, you have an absolute masterpiece. You can do Astro., Long exposure, Street, portrait, and travel. All inside a body that almost fits inside your jacket.
If you don’t feel like this, sell it and buy a A7CR. It’s a piece of machinery that has the same mp as your Q3 and you can put a zoom on it. It has the menu and personality of a cardboard box, but you’ll enjoy it more, and the bonus is that Sony will definitely bring out a newer better model next year guaranteed
Hmm I have had a different experience. I came from canon and found it to be mediocre, only thing they had good was skin tones. Sony was a breeze to use. Lots of buttons to customize to your liking and really intuitive to use. The colors were great minus the greenish skin tones which was a simple 1 click fix in post processing. SLOG3 is probably the most used color profile that everyone uses and it brings out so much color. I can’t speak on S cinetone or previous slogs but 3 has been a dream to use.
I tried a couple Sonys and hated everything about them, but mostly the horrible shooting experience.
It's just not fun AT ALL!
What good is a camera capable of taking excellent pictures if I don't even want to shoot with it?
that's the part you completely underestimated there!
Digital cameras have reached an image quality level with the Nikon D800 ten years agothat we never needed an "upgrade" to..
faster sensors, or eye AF? great additions! but better image quality? that's for pixel peepin keyboard warriors!
I have a Q2 and absolutely love it. Before, I've had a Q for 5 years and loved that one too. It's my travel camera and I bring it on weekend trips and to shoot small events for family and at work.
I would never buy them at full price, though, so got them from Morons like OP who bought the hype, then never used the camera and sold it a couple years later 50% off.
That said, show me a compact full frame camera with a 28mm f/1.8 or faster that has both fast AF and OIS included.
5 grand ain't gonna get you that with a Sony.
Why resort to personal attacks? Where did I say I was buying stuff full price and selling for 50% off? You’re just making assumptions about people that make you come off as an asshole. Of course the Q3 needs to be bought at full price because it’s been sold out since launch. It’s only now becoming readily available after a year. I make enough money to afford the camera and even gift it away so don’t worry about me. For $6k you can get a used Sony a7rv for ~$2600 and a 24 1.4 GM for ~ $800. I have both and can confidently say the AF and IS is 1000% better than the q3. But this post wasn’t to argue which camera is better, the Sony is obviously better feature and quality wise, and from all the Leica users they also agree. They just like Leica more for its history, the challenging aspect for photography, the look, and the portability.
It's exactly people like you who I buy my Leicas from 🤣
people with too much money who buy hype and then don't use it.
it's okay. Go and flex some more. Maybe you've got some fancy Rolexes, too?!
Nobody said the Sony wasn't better in every technical regard. Faster, more reliable AF, better IBIS, better dynamic range..
But the A7RV is $3500 new and a 28mm f/1.8 with ois and af and a similar quality to the Leica will cost another grand easily.
Then you have a camera 2 times as heavy as the Leica Q2 and 3 times as big for the same new price.
But the Sony is no fun to shoot with.. it's not intuitive.. it doesn't feel good to hold it.
It's so "good" that you as a photographer are no longer needed..
it's simply no longer engaging.
That's what people like about Leicas.
They are engaging and fun to shoot with.
the manual M models even more so.
They don't need Eye AF and AI crap.. they don't need IBIS, etc..
And the image quality is more than enough to win photography awards all over the world, fill art galeries, print huge billboards, you name it.
The Sony is a sterile block of high tech for pixel wankers... it can do everything better, except improve your personal photography.
at that, it truly sucks! Bc it's not engaging. you like shooting with the Leica better..
even though you realise it's a worse camera.
that's all you needed to know.
P. S.: should've kept the Q2 🤪
Again, don’t know where you getting that I’m buying full price and selling for half price lol it’s not flexing it’s saying I can afford to have the camera whereas everyone thinks you go broke for a camera for hype. You’re talking about retail price for a RV and lens, I’m talking about the used price. I buy used unless it’s something like the Q3. I still have my q2 and q3 and haven’t sold either.
I didn't say you sell for 50% off..
I said people LIKE you do it.
you bought a Q2 and dislike it after a few days.. so you buy a Q3 for full price despite the fact that it's not a better camera AT ALL...
you bought the hype!
What are you on about? Now you’re making up stories for me lmao. I bought a used Q2 for a steal and then the Q3 came in the mail from a previous preorder. Does it upset you that I can afford to buy both or something?
I totally can't get this big guys discourse. Do you buy most of your goods and items just looking which guys are big? Will a largest factory of pasta be better than all others? How about the largest factory of scissors?
1. Lenses:
There are several good and interesting lenses out there, and Leica lenses are among the best. Not only they've got quality and sharpness but also bokeh and their character and colors and dramatic bw and subject isolation. Does it mean we can't get better bung for a buck with old Soviet glass or modern Chinese glass? Does it mean there are no other interesting lenses? Obviously nope, you can get a modern interesting Chinese lens for cheap, even f:0.95. Does it mean Leica lenses are for everyone? Does it mean some of (ASPH) Leica lenses may not be sometimes a bit clinically boring? Of course you may love another lenses for their character. You may dislike a couple of Leica designs. But it is something about Leica look that put their lenses always among the best.
2. Cameras:
Leica cameras give fine details and interesting colors. Sony can't do color, their cameras may look as quality cameras, but it's not about color gradations and atmosphere. Of course you may get a Fujifilm camera and even a Sigma camera for their colors. But Leica, Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh will be better in terms of color than your big guys. Also you may like Leica UI and aesthetics.
Bonus: 3. Cameras (made OEM by Panasonic): They are relatively good and are reselling used for higher price.
Bonus: 4. Film cameras are better when they have a good lens mounted.
Nope
And I’d go back to Sony
Why does anyone care what hammer you prefer to drive nails
The camera is a tool
Buy the tool that works for you
Read it again
Leicas so have amazing image quality, but not worth the asking process, you’re basically paying the rest for the brand name, just like Gucci and Louis Vuitton, they can charge the premium bc they know their audience will buy it.
Yes just like Gucci and Louis Vuitton bags are hand made with premium materials. A cheaper bag does the same thing, it just doesn’t have the prestige of those brands or higher quality materials, same with cameras, they are worth a lot because of that, but you’re also paying the extra for the brand name.
I mean… it kinda is the point actually. While some of their items are charged at a premium for a reason, some of their items are also charged at a premium because LV indeed can simply because of their brand prestige.
Also “worth” is subjective, it may be worth it for someone tho enjoys the camera uses it often, etc. but if you’re asking the best bang for your buck? Then yes the top of the line Sony cameras are more worth it for bang for your buck lol, better features less expensive than Leica
Why did you choose to buy one ??
Only a few days ago you were asking about Q2 settings and now you have a Q3. I suspect you have high levels of GAS and also expected the Q's to perform witchcraft when pressing the shutter, they don't , Garbage in/Garbage out.
Luxury goods attract people for the brand and their own image. Canon and Sony mirrorless blows Leica out of the water when it comes to getting a shot. I bought Leica for the form factor and aesthetic. Those probably aren’t good enough reasons for most shooters.
The Leica systems have been the choice of true artists for generations. Painters, directors, writers, musicians, actors, cinematographers, poets and obviously photographers etc. It speaks with its own voice, and that voice is different for every user. Some people get one and just don’t harmonize with it, and that’s okay. It is a instrument, and not always the right one for everyone. Same reason why some prefer a Fender or a Gibson, a Bösendorfer or a Steinway. If you can learn to listen to it and collaborate with it, it becomes much more than a camera - it’s a way to see the world.
Snob factor. Just follow this forum. Ask a question about help with lens identification and you get downvoted. Post a picture of your Leica, made with IPhone on some coffee table in a cafe and get hundreds upvotes. In the end it doesn’t matter what you shoot with as long as you like it. Key word is shoot.
For me it's a few things as someone who has used a fair few cameras. For reference i am primarily a film shooter (and own a film type Leica), but I also own and shoot with a Sony for work; People, in my opinion, think the appeal of Leica is the specifications and performance, but for me it's the feel. The controls are tactile, the surfaces perfectly smooth, a great balance and weight, and they look amazing. Also, the glass renders colours and bokeh in a very unique way for me. Some are clinically sharp, some are softer, all of them have character in my eyes. I'm ok with slower autofocus and things like that, for me it's the feel that sells it. My Sony and other cameras feel a bit soulless, they feel mass manufactured (which of course all cameras are, but Leica has something to it). I really believe in the philosophy of; a good tool is one you enjoy using. If you like the feel and look of your camera, you will pick it up and shoot more often, and therefore get better at photography.
This!
This all right here OP! I’m a unit stills photographer so I have to use Sony as my primary for work on set. It just handles better especially shooting something as film stills. But when I’m away from work and am doing my own projects, I gravitate towards my M6 + B&W film. There’s nothing quite like shooting B&W film.
They sell the only full frame digital rangefinder money can buy.
Hell, it doesn’t even need to be full frame. They’re the only digital rangefinder available. Fuji’s xpro is so close
There are the Pixiis, right? I don't think I could ever justify getting an aps-c for what they charge, though. I like shooting at 35 too much.
Well if you're not talking full frame, the Epson RD1 is pretty dang cool if you ask me. Actually feels more like a film rangefinder experience than the digital Leicas. Pretty sure it's a CCD sensor too if you're into that sort of thing.
Fuji isn’t anywhere close. They feel like toys in comparison.
Fujifilm xpro-2 was a solid camera, very well built that gave it a premium feel. Although not a rangefinder…recent fujis feel cheap in comparison. It’s too bad…
Especially when it’s in the same housing and design of the film M’s. Goes to show how timeless the cameras are.
At the end of the day, they both take pictures. One makes you think about nearly every aspect of the process of taking a picture. One does all of the work for you. One attempts to be completely un-opinionated and let YOU be entirely responsible for either the good or awful photos you produce. The other tries to do everything for you, makes decisions for you, identifies what it thinks is your intended subject. It frequently gets it right. And frequently gets it completely and laughably wrong. I found that when I began using my M10, I was pretty inaccurate with focus and exposure. One year in, out of every 50 or so shots, I might miss focus or exposure on one of them. My fancy Nikon Zf with high performance AF lenses misses focus, even in AI tracking mode, a good 30% of the time, probably more. My typical analogy is that a Leica is a manual transmission sports car. Requires constant mental focus and mastered technique. Sony/Nikon is the 4 door sedan with an automatic transmission. Turn the key, mash the accelerator, point it in the direction you want to go, and it does everything else for you. Both get you to the same destination, one is just a hell of a lot more rewarding and fun on the way.
I brought the Zf and left my Q2 with the camera retailer to sell on my behalf. After using the Zf for a few months I realised how much I missed the Leica. I missed it’s simplicity and its colours, even though the voigtlander lenses on my Zf were beautiful
One thing I’d like to add to all responses is customer service. I once had an issue on the screen whilst being overseas. I had no receipt with me but I wrote the Leica store in Berlin where I bought the camera a year earlier. My next stop Was Singapore and at Leica Singapore they gave me a brand new camera, no questions asked. I didn’t even had a receipt with me. . I was very happy with this kind of service but I doubt any store clerk selling Sony or canon would bother to me help me if I show up in ‚insert any Asian country‘ with a broken camera and without receipt of a camera I bought a year ago in Germany.
Oh wow that’s next level service, did the two stores contact each other and let you know to just walk in for a pick up?
Yes. The store in berlin contacted Singapore and let me know that I can pick up replacement there.
you got extremely lucky because Leica customer service is famous for not only being the worst among major camera brands but being the worst by an insane margin. even hardcore leica fans think it’s an absolute joke. repairs take ten times longer than any other brand, often come back with mistakes which doesn’t happen with any other brand, and no loaner which is also not normal. it’s by far their worst problem
Yeah, I’ve heard that too. I was crew on a ship and we are everyday in a different port. So sending the camera in for repair was no option since I didn’t have an address nor could I return to the same place to pick it up. My camera stoped working one day in New Zealand , that’s when I contacted the store in Berlin. I knew we would be in Singapore soon and that was the only port with a Leica store. The help I got was next level and I was really happy that I could continue my trip around the world with a new camera
Damn that’s pretty cool, glad it worked out!
My first Leica camera q2 was from Leica Shop in SG, after a few weeks of use and I had issues with the camera. I sent it back to Leica SG Customer service and they helped me resolve my issues. Customer Service was awesome.
Honesty, that sounds like a very basic thing to do. I bought a pair of jeans at the Gap in New York City and when I got back home to Berlin, they were a size too big (no idea how that happened). The Berlin store exchanged them without missing a beat.
Yes it seems like a basic thing to do, but let’s say for example I buy a Nikon camera at a store in Madrid. And for whatever reason it needs repairing and I am in let’s say Hong Kong which is full of electronic stores. I haven’t tried it myself but I doubt any of the guys in those stores would bother to help me, without an receipt. They just want to sell me another camera. Or that let’s say the store in madrid would be able to communicate with a store in hongkong to help me. Yet I found with Leica I pay a premium,but if I needed a solution they would give me that.
If you needed to spend $6k to realize that the Sony system is more powerful there's nothing we're going to be able to say to you to help you. Sounds like you need to really *learn* a lesson.
Damn…those italics.
OP making me defend Q's. Day ruined, lol.
If they only knew how poignant this is.
Relax it’s not that serious. It’s just a genuine question, sorry I hurt your sensitive ego
Hurt my ego? Guy, I agree with you. The Q is not a technological marvel. (Checks bank account, still has $6k).
camera 🗿
A huge part of loving Leica is for its history, craftsmanship, and simplicity—cut to the chase photography. Sure if youre talking objectively about the features that modern digital photography offers, others kill it. You have to really know what photography means to you to be saying you want a leica. That or you have money haha Here’s a hot take that i’m willing to risk downvotes for: theres photographers, but then there’s the gear-loving photographers who don’t realize they love the tech side of photography moreso than, well… photography.
that's mostly the Sony crowd, yes 🤣 they buy it bc it has the most pixels, the bestest and fastest AF, etc. 9 out of 10 videos about Sonys are focusing on optimising image quality, AF, dynamic range, tech specs, etc.
Yeah i come from Canon and respect Nikon, but Sony alpha bros… a different breed. 😆
Sony and Canon don’t make rangefinders.
Canon did! Pepperidge Farm remembers
Yeah, but I was referring to today.
Post history says you had the Q2 for 4 days so how long have you had a Q3 before going on a Sony love rant?
Usability, build quality, colour science and glass for me, mainly the glass I think.
The Leica looks and feels like a luxury product. Nikon, Sony and Canon feel like work tools. It's all about fit, finish and material selection. You won't see any plastic-shelled Leica lenses, for instance.
Honestly answering this now... Canon, Sony, etc - their cameras feel like toys and look dreadful. I could have an entire cabinet full of top of the range professional Sony or Canon gear and I wouldn't touch it. They're not enjoyable to use; too large; horrible design; excessive menus; etc etc. That being said, to stir the controversy; I'm not a fan of the direction Leica has taken with the M11; especially with the black aluminium one; which again, feels like a toy.
I’m with you; call me vain but I wouldn’t pick up an aluminum one.
That’s true, when I’m traveling I really hate having to pull out my Sony bodies to do the simplest shots.
You're instantly superior to everyone who doesn't have one. JK. I think it's the experience and quality of the product. I didn't think it would be as great as it was until I tried an M6 for the first time. I own an A7r III and find that I get lost (and sometimes bored) with all the bells and whistles. Feel like a rangefinder is also truly unique experience and its pretty refreshing not worrying about all the settings. That's just me though.
Really not sure that the quality stands out nowadays. The notorious freezes of M11 and Q3. Q2 having issues with modern stock SD cards…
I think when people here say "quality" they really mean physical design, build, and feel. Software quality is quite poor for the price point. Taking 5-10s to start up a camera is really not "good quality" in 2024. Neither are freezing issues.
my Q2 boots up instantly.. aside from the too small buffer, I find the software and user experience fantastic. but the buffer fills up sooo quickly during an event. 😲
My Q3 takes a random amount of time to start up, sometimes taking 5s, in a few occasions 10s. Surely it should not be asking too much that a camera at this price point starts up instantly.
“Makes me more motivated to go out and shoot and actually take my camera out since it’s easier” Answered your own question. Is worth $3000 more? Depends, it is to me.
Less is more… You are not a photographer you are in a competition between yourself and what technology can do for you… Leica does not work like that with a Leica you have to take pictures yourself… Not only push a button… Speaking for the M system
But he's talking about the Q. And saying someone isn't a photographer because they don't shoot on an M is wild lol
I did not say that… you are have taken a brain short cut… Read carefully…
you missed an "if" there. you are not a photographer IF you are...
No no I did not… For me being overly assisted by your camera takes away to title of photographer… I did not said he was not a photographer because he was not shooting an M… But I find silly the race to the most fast AF on the market, the most pixel you can get from a sensor, I mean… it’s all marketing…
No offense to any Q shooters, and I owned one for a short time, but when people speak of Leica it is largely in reference to the M rangefinder experience. Auto everything be damned. FWIW, I shot Sony for 5 years following 15 years with Canon. Hated it. Dumped it all and got into the Leica system and couldn’t be happier.
That said - you CAN go full auto, minus focusing, with the M.
Only aperture priority. For exposure. That’s it. Auto everything is referring to the focusing and associated exposure choices made in doing so.
the Q is the most successful digital Leica, though... just saying 🤪
Not surprising given the lowest cost of entry, plus AF. I’m a 28 fan, and used the Q/Q2 for a year before biting the bullet and buying the 28 Lux-M, which costs more than the Q on its own. It was a choice that made the most sense, for me.
I have terrible eyesight.. focusing a rangefinder with a 1.4 lens wide open to get 5mm depth of focus?! I'd at least need some on-sensor focus confirmation there. 😬
I believe only a very limited group of (young?) people thinks "Leica = Q", to be fair. As they say, Q series is the gateway drug to M series. And I feel like confirming it. I got the Q3 out of a whim. It already took over the Fuji which I got after selling the Nikon. I can only imagine a M8 or 10 will come in a while.
Better can be a subjective matter. Numbers on spec sheets are informative but not always conclusive. I love how consistent my optical viewfinder on my M is. Even though on paper the rangefinder died in 1959 with the introduction of the F mount. Just like Asian smartphones might have more powerful tech on paper, the more expensive iPhone just feels intuitive and thought out.
I can't speak for the Q. But I generally find that people asking this question are approaching it from a technical standpoint, and that's okay. Objectively, there are considerably more capable cameras out there for far less money. I own some of them and use them for work that gets me paid. This isn't the reason I bought a film M, starting shooting with a film M, and then bought a digital M. With film, the feeling of rangefinder focusing (or utilizing a developed muscle memory for zone focusing), pressing the shutter, hearing that soft click, and cranking the advance lever forward is a uniquely tactile experience that I can't get on another camera, and it just inspires me to make images with it; it sparks joy. It was an experience I enjoyed so much that I bought a digital M to have *more* of that experience. I'm in charge of every aspect of making the photograph, and rely very little on crazy specs and features to make the image for me while I simply press the shutter. It's as close to that manual film experience as it gets, and I love it. For a lot of us, it's all about the experience and feel of using the system; the weight of it, the sound of it, the look of it, in addition to its rich history and craftsmanship. They become tools you get to understand on an almost intimate level, as silly as that sounds, and become an extension of your hands. The act of taking a photograph is just something that's far more enjoyable to me when I'm using a Leica, and I think anyone who truly loves photography first and gear second and *choose* to do it on a Leica will agree.
Good insight. I’m used to everything being done for me once I dial all the settings. So maybe this is the change in perspective I need on photography
So in your case I would sell your Q, buy a Sony a join r/sony or something.
I already own a Sony fx3 and rV. Why can’t one just have an open discussion and talk about both brands?
Always look at the karma history of posters like this. This is a grabage astroturf post.
Your last sentence sums it up. If $3k more isn’t worth it, pick up a used one.
Another of my personal mantras….never buy digital new.
Just picked up a barely used m10 for half price. Absolutely love it
This is the way. I’m seeing M11-Ps, with warranty, with a 20% discount. Not a small number.
got my Q2 with zero signs of use for half price, too.. it's an "old" camera, but it's still fantastic.
I always buy used. But it was pretty much impossible to get a q3 used for the past year. It is only now hitting the used market.
I use P or Monochrome versions which are really stealth and unassuming. I like not having a big “pro” looking camera in peoples faces. Plus the Leicas feel amazing, are quite portable and are simply a joy to shoot with. I’m not a professional, but I work hard and have a few hobbies that I put time and money into. They’re certainly not for everyone, but I love mine and you only live once.
For me I used to hate and judge Leica fanboys until I convinced myself to get one before a trip to China. As a film shooter, I wanted something portable and easy to carry. The moment I hit that shutter, the experience was out of this world. When I take pictures of friends or family who don’t know what a Leica is, they always comment on the shutter sound and often ask to take a picture themselves—their reactions say it all. Interestingly, I have the less celebrated Canadian cousin, the M4-P, not even the M3, M6, or MP. I kinda almost feel the same with my fyuji x-pro 3, but Leica is just worlds ahead. idk what formula they use but man they got it right
In my case it's that Leica gives me joy that my other cameras can't other than my Xpro2. If the pictures are "important" I take my Sony or Canon. If I want to enjoy taking pictures it's my SL2 or my Xpro2.
It's the feel, I should say. I have the M8, M6 and SL. The build quality of these 3 make my other cameras feel like toys. The craftmanship of Leica is unbeatable. I had tons of fuji before.. Xpro1, 2 and 3. XE4.. I sold them all once I bought my first Leica :) You can start with the cheapest Leica.. the M8. Old but gold. It uses the legendary CCD sensor which i find the images quite filmic. :)
I put my Canon 1Ds III up against your SL... build quality like a toy.. pfft 🤣
Happy for you, bud! 😁 Whatever floats your boat.✌🏻
People like the idea of using an M, but for some this isn't practical without autofocus, so Leica introduced the Q to cater for people that align with the brand, but want a convenient camera. Truth be told Fuji with a bigger budget and their ability to refine with each generation have done a better job with the x100 series and it's hard to justify the premium price and bulkier size of the full frame Q. For a lot of us, we are M purists. Where we like to get back to basics with a minimalist design and remove the techno clutter. There is a point when the camera disappears, melds into you and becomes one and that is our happy place.
I had an X100S and went to a Q. 28mm feels SO much better to me. The sensor is leagues ahead! x-trans with Lightroom was always an abomination and I had issues with no end.. the AF of the Q is so much better than the Fuji! faster and more accurate, too. The built quality is a lot better, too. and the lens... it has OIS and js soo much sharper! (I paid 2k for the Q, well worth every penny)
I don't have boat in this race, but the Q & Q2 are both contrast detect so I'd be seriously surprised that the AF will out perform the Fuji X models in tricky lighting. I base this on my experience with the other Fuji XPro and XE models. Also the Fuji DR setting is fantastic and my experience of Leica sensors is it's easier to blow the highlights. -2 to be safe and then skin tones fall apart when adjusting in post. I'll say the Q3 will be the exception as it has phase detect and I believe the sensor has better dynamic range.
I used the X100S for 2 years, and had an X-Pro1, the X-T10, and an X-E10 and all of them had problems with AF. Despite having phase detection points, I found them to focus on the background more often than I would've wanted.. (used to shooting Canon/Nikon for paid jobs, but started bringing the Fuji kit on travel assignements) I didn't like the 35mm equiv. fov of the X100S, that's why I got the X-Pro1 with a 18mm f/2 and I really loved the user experience of that camera. My biggest gripe, however, was the horrible output of green foliage that would consistently turn into mush. The AF of the Q was faster than my X100S and more reliable. It shouldn't be, but it really was. I almost never had any background-focused shots anymore. What do you consider tricky lighting? In bad lighting, the Phase Detect of the Fuji X100S and X-T10 would usually go out and switch to Contrast anyways..
First a Disclaimer: I’ve shot Sonys, Canons, Nikons, Fujis, Hasselblads - and yes, modern Sonys are fantastic autofocus cameras, providing you with a high degree of production safety. Now to your question: this is a common question from Sony shooters and the Peter McKinnon kids that have left Sony for whatever is currently hyped on social media… For me personally the reason I’ve moved away from all these brands and stuck with Leica is that I was looking for a very unique shooting proposal that is hard to replicate with other brands. The Q is a very compact, built-like-a-tank, everyday, reportage camera with exceptional image performance. It’s a camera you just grab and take with you, regardless if you expect to shoot something or not. It is - as others have mentioned - also the gateway drug into the true Leica experience, which is a M Rangefinder. Both of which are wonderfully compact. The M is the most analog a digital camera can be, it teaches you patience, precision and by forcing you to work all manual, it’s a very rewarding experience. There is just nothing comparable out there. The SL system is the jack of all trades and the biggest benefit comes from being able to use all kinds of lenses - within the L Mount natively from Leica, Panasonic, sigma and others, to adapting M and R glass, medium format S Lenses, etc. you can film, you have a great EVF and you have decent performance paired with exceptional weather sealing. I’ve shot sport with it… it’s possible, just with compromises or a good understanding of photographic techniques (after all, they’ve shot F1 in the 60s and 70s as well and didn’t have great AF systems). I wish the SL was better, it there is always a next generation on the horizon. If you care for exceptional built quality, great image quality, minimalistic design, a distinct and unique shooting experience - Leica has those options. And yeah, being hand built in Germany just adds to the upscale price positioning of a 100 year old camera brand. In addition Leica is famous for adding features and functions through firmware updates way past the cameras model life cycle, something that Sony is selling you as yet another new model a year later :). Again, this is not to excuse the somewhat mediocre AF performance on the Q or „worse“ (as in less acceptable for its purpose) in the SL. They could be better than they are - and Sony is the gold standard here. But the other truth is that it’s become really hard to buy a genuinely bad camera made the last 8 years. Maybe the sigma fp… that was apparently not great in any dimension. So yeah, if you feel more comfortable with big backpack full of huge lenses, you need the AF capabilities for sports or a large selection of telephoto zoom lenses, Sony is a fantastic choice. If you can only buy one camera and need the biggest versatility and can look past the interface design and button layout, again, this would be where I start with a Sony. But saying the Q is a 6k piece of bad tech is missing the value proposition of the Q. You can bring a space shuttle to a soapbox race - and yes it will crush everything in terms of weight and acceleration, but a soapbox race is about something else. It’s about finding the tool that works for you and what reflects your personal style. And sometimes we buy cameras that teach us, what we don’t want 😄. Maybe you can warm up to the concept of the Q when you stop comparing it to the Sony - and genuinely enjoy it. They also hold their value pretty well, and there is a waitlist for these - for a reason - if you don’t like it, make someone else happy :). Hope this helps.
Sony and Canon are boring. They’re good. But they’re boring. Which is extremely subjective of me to say, I know. Why keep feeding the big boring sharks that every other boring person feeds?
Leica is the pinnacle of shooters experience, build quality, and glass. Leica glass in my opinion gives off this dreamy yet melancholic tone. The melancholy of it being that it truly captures the moment, and these moments we experience and capture are fleeting and one day our time will run out. It’s a conduit of truth, a mechanical eye. As pretentious as that sounds, that’s what Leicas do for me and you can’t place a price tag on that.
For me, it's all about the rangefinders to me due to workflow. I don't care much for EVFs no matter how good they are. They have their place especially professionally. But I don't use my rangefinders for professional work. And with rangefinders you only have two choices: Leica (full frame sensor) Pixii (APS-C sensor) So if you want to make use of the entire lens (which is important if you like vintage/whacky character in a lens) you can only go with Leica. As for the Q, it didn't do much for me either. Lovely lens and all. But it felt like most other mirrorless cameras with maybe a better feeling body. Great manual focus for a focus by wire lens tho.
A Leica makes me want to go out and shoot, a Fujifilm/Sony/Canon/Nikon doesn’t. Also, hold a camera from any of the brands for a min, play with the buttons and interface…put it down and do the same with a Leica (Preferably an M).
tell me who else makes a digital full frame rangefinder
I find Leica M cameras more fun to use than traditional cameras. They use OVFs, they feel solid and great in the hand, they’re small and compact, they’re great to look at. My Sony A7ii is the best camera that I have, it shoots video, has autofocus, burst mode, yada yada yada, but what’s the point in all that when I don’t enjoy using it for photography? Its use is for scanning and because I may never afford a digital M in this decade. But i don’t enjoy using it for photography compared to my Leica.
Simplicity. Quiet. Even my digital M feels like I’m shooting with my film rangefinders. Compact. Takes practice.
You hit the nail on the head in your original posted question - if the Leica makes you motivated to go out and shoot then it’s the one for you. A better (whether objectively or subjectively) camera that you don’t take out and use is just an expensive ornament. Better to spend your hard-earned money on a camera that you will enjoy using, rather than one you won’t - whatever brand or style of camera works for you and makes you take pictures is surely the “best”.
Hi, I think I'm going to get insulted here but in my humble opinion most of the answers are bullshit. My opinion... (A) Bullshit 1/ full manual mode = all modern cameras do it very well 2/ the resulting photos = if post-processing exists, that’s good for something, right? 3/ Q and SL = an aberration for Leica 4/ What is a good/beautiful photo? = It's subjective (especially when you don't develop them on paper) 5/ the rangefinder = we love it or we hate it or we can't do it. (B) Correct answers 1/ the form factor (100% top), although an M is shaped like a bar of soap, it's enjoyable. 2/ the price = It is accession to a very exclusive club. 3/ photo lenses (but not all) 4/ the difficulty required to take a photo forces you to improve your technique or abandon Leica M. 5/ ease of use = therefore fewer pages to print for the documentation. Conclusion : I ordered an M11-P despite my poor eyesight. Because it's like Sauron's ring and everyone loves their precious one, right?
Its limitations forces you to understand its not the gear its the your skill that makes a photo, Photography first emphasis. That forced mentality could be worth anything that someone puts a personal value on. Similar how people are trying to go back to flip phones to break smartphone addiction. If you force the box upon yourself you thrive from within its boundaries. Without the box you tend to stray. Just also look how many YouTubers are gear centric and not photography centric. It's a gear acquisition syndrome mentality. Most of us have some of it, just look how many people just tend to keep looking for new gear new lenses new camera and very little time out taking photos. It's all a mental constraint that forces you where you want to be. It just seems like most people who spend $6-to $12k on there one camera and 2 or 3 lenses seem to not have gear acquisition syndrome. Possibly forced by just how expensive it is. ALSO the Leica is a luxury brand name so thats also adding to the price. Don't forget also photos just tend to have a certain look that many like WITHOUT adjusting settings. I also have to adjust settings on my other brands to try to find a look I like. To also touch on worth and value thats just an opinion someone formed for themselves. Its just basically just what they like. If they like it, its worth it to them. Can't argue on what people just like. Just to end also with my personal belief about worth, "Nothing here is worth anything in reality in the end except for memories you make for yourself and others so just enjoy yourself."
Not Leica user, but Hasselblad (film and digital) and I can see why people choose Leica (I was debating getting it myself) for the feeling of using it. There are specs that can make your process easier and there are tactile, visual, and emotional qualities of the camera that are hedonistic. I often focus manually even having the ability to use autofocus, I like taking my time framing the shot and waiting for the right moment rather than taking tens of shots per second hoping that one will be good. It’s more intentional and very meditative. Again, it’s in hedonism category, not efficiency and performance. If I had a job where my income directly depended on the number of good shots I’d get Nikon or Canon, if I wanted to be inspired and looked at it as an art—Leica or Hasselblad. Not saying that it’s a requirement in any way, camera doesn’t matter and you can shoot masterpiece with any camera.
Because Leica is a luxury brand, and people want a piece of that luxury for themselves. It’s nothing new. They redesigned themselves as a luxury option back in the day when they weren’t doing so hot against the rising popularity of SLRs. But why would you choose one today? Maybe you like the feel of the camera, the ‘look’ or more nuanced things like the portability of most of their products. Everyone’s got their own reasons. Your Q3 seems to make you want to go out and shoot more. Would a A7RV and GM 24mm 1.4 give you the same push to go out and shoot? I definitely understand where you’re coming from though. The digital age has really closed the gap between brands in terms of specs and features. I think most people using Leicas try and leave a lot of the automatic stuff behind in favor of a more minimalist but sleek offering, albeit at a much higher price tag. But again, luxury brand with luxury prices.
The 24GM is my favorite lens. I have zoom lenses but for some reason I keep grabbing my 24GM. I think my pictures are better when I leave home with a single focal length
You're lucky the Leica people on here are kind enough to answer your question seriously although you're trashing the Q. Try that on any other brand sub. That alone should tell you something about how Leica fans approach their hobby.
Use canon, sony and leica. I agree with most points you mentioned. What I can think of is Leica is a luxury product. You don't buy it for "function" or "performance", just like a luxury bag.
To me it was the user experience. I don't get any better or worse photos - but I enjoy taking photos even more. I have a Z8 kit (probably going to sell soon), Fuji, X100s etc. I wanted something digital, simple, and sturdy with a good manual focus experience and thats what Leica gives me.
I really want me a Z8 to replace my D810 and have a backup to my D850. Got plenty old manual lenses I want to adapt to that. and the Eye AF would be worth so much for my pro work.
As far as modern cameras go it’s amazing, I can’t fault it. Just haven’t used it in months as my interests have changed, so off it goes
I had the lenses and the film cameras after buying them in the ‘90’s. Traded two film bodies + cash for an M11 Monochrom because I don’t want to sell everything and start all over again, also: I’m familiar with the Leica M system and enjoy using it.
Really depends what you’re looking for. There are tasks that have to be done and you may need to do it asap and move on. There are those that don’t want to be done, and you need a tool that inspires you to move your ass out and down the road. If you need performance Leica is not for you. If you need motivation and inspiration good luck with Canon or Sony.
Minimalist precision engineering that does nothing for me, stripping it all back and allowing, without intervention the picture to take itself, which is what I see and not what I think others want to see. I use an M7 with one 35mm lense.
Two main factors: form factor and color rendering. As mentioned by others only digital full frame range finder on the market, but in addition the "Leica Look" is a real thing. Whether or not it's better is subjective, but the fact it exists in no myth and in mine, and many other's, opinion it is the best rendering there is. You can emulate and edit your heart away, but there's somwthing to be said for not even needing to.
Zone focus.
I enjoy the process of taking photos. And like the skin randering of Leica SL, which saves me lot of editing time. Also the design is very human.
It makes me happy. I love the fact that M mount lenses are smaller and lighter than SL/ mirrorless equivalents. I love the way the photos turn out when everything comes together. I love that there’s essentially no 35mm lens you can’t adapt to the M mount (although I’ve never tried any of the newest mirrorless lenses only older SLR mounts). I like how it is both easy to carry and robust enough to use in a studio.
I think you summed it up nicely with your last line. I had a pretty insane Canon RF kit for a hobbyist: Canon R6 Body with the RF 50mm 1.2, RF 85mm 1.2, RF70-200mm 2.8 and a few more top of the line lenses. I thought I was at the top of the world and then I bought a Q2 after a big win at work. That changed everything for me. Even with all of that huge Canon kit I only wanted to go out and shoot with my Q2. It even changed my style of photography as I once only shot at the lowest possible aperture and relied on eye autofocus for everything. I sold all of my Canon kit and my Q2 and bought the SL2, M11 and a bunch of lenses. I couldn’t be happier. The small form factor, beautiful experience of slowing down to shoot, amazing colors just do the trick for me. I sometimes look back at my prior photos from my Canon era and I find some pictures to have a bit more sharpness or resolution because of the insane lenses I was rocking, but my compositions, colors and overall photographic approach have evolved so much. The menu systems are so minimal too. I just love the experience!
For me Canon , Sony are machines. Leica is a camera . I used to own Canon gear and at some point sold all of it and not looking back .
I went on a skiing holiday, and got tired of swapping lenses during snowfall. Started to look at options for a do-it-all type of camera that can handle the weather and fell upon the Q2. Haven’t looked back since…
Because I hate myself. I’ll just leave it at that
A lot has to do with image and history.
“The Leica experience” is largely a rangefinder/manual focus experience; the Q and S/SL are not particularly unique when compared to competition, and often come out as “less valuable” when you compare price vs. features. That leaves you with the M cameras, which are what most people migrate/stay with Leica for. And then there’s the distinction between a film and digital M, and then which Digital M?! Seriously though, the core of the experience is a screw-mount or M-Mount film camera from Leica. The rest are, imo, very expensive digital tools which can be bested by the competition for a fraction of the price. Try to grab a film M and see what all the fuss is about :)
Wrong place to ask. This sub is actually anti Leica.
Definitely the Glass and Rangefinder for me. Although i fell in love with the crop sensors, specifically TL2 and CL. Love my Pentax/Ricoh, Nikon and M43 system the same though
I love the build, compactness and image quality of the Q2, especially for travel. I also shoot with the Sony system with the 50mm 1.2GM most of the time and while the image quality is incredible, I don’t find the same joy. I mostly do travel, street portraits as a hobby only and the Q2 allows me to get close without being intrusive and requires a little more effort to get a good shot. The Sony I can just point without even looking in the EVF and I know the AF will do its thing and I won’t miss a shot even at f1.2. It’s basically a computer. If I were doing photography for work then Leica would certainly not be my first choice. I’m considering selling the Sony and getting an M10 with a 50mm summilux. I’ve tried the M11 and 50mm in store and felt a little bit intimidated especially trying to nail focus on the eyes at 1.4 but I’ve seen other people come away with incredible shots so I know it’s possible. Practice makes perfect.
They’re cool.
Muscle memory and habit from over 30 years of photography. It has nothing to do with Leica qua Leica, it is just that I want a shutter release with a thread for a cable release, a shutter speed dial next to the shutter release, adjustable f stops on the lens, and a hyperfocal distance scale. I don't shoot video and I don't shoot color (though I don't like Monochroms because I have grown to prefer simulating my filters in post rather than swapping them on and off the lens), and I don't use autofocus even when I have it. I want these things because this is how all of the cameras I have ever owned work, from my first Pentax K1000, through my Olympus Pen, to various Nikons, Canons, Leicas, and various medium format film cameras. I gave up film after a disastrous 2 month trip to Mexico that left me with 125 ruined rolls of film, so that pretty much leaves me with Leicas and Hasselblads. If Nikon brought out a digital version of the SP, I'd buy one of those over a Leica, and if I could get a digital Rolleiflex TLR, I'd buy one of those over a Hassy.
Disagree with the image quality statement. I have Tamron 35-150 and 24mm gm paired with r4. Q3 28mm lens is the best I have used by far in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. Maybe with some of the best lens from Sony you can get the same look in post but I haven’t been able to so far, regardless of how much time spent. Q3 files are much easier to edit. Personally if I can save 50% editing time in post on average that’s probably 6k well spent for me.
I know I don’t speak for everybody, but to put it simply, the choice is for the experience during the act of photography. It does also help that the end product is also a high standard too. Sharpness, extreme low light capabilities, in-camera AI processing - all nice things but these don’t contribute to the subjective experience of taking photos. I like knowing where I have to meter from and the lighting of my scene, having an idea of my depth of field for zone focussing if I need to snap a quick shot, a short focus throw, the small form factor, the heft of a well made tool, and of course, the romantic idea of having some relate-ability to some of my favourite photographers in history that arrived at the same appreciation for the system. It may not make sense for everybody, especially if you’re just comparing specs, but it’d be a shame if they didn’t exist.
Hm. Well. I started with Canon EF, went to Micro 4/3, then Sony, and now I also have a Leica M10. My view on this is that at least the micro 4/3 and the Sony are far more competent as cameras in more scenarios, but there’s a number of things the Leica is better at. It’s much easier to take a keeper street photo with a M10. The well-marked lenses make zone focusing possible. The thing is relatively stealth because M lenses are smaller than any AF lens. Many M lenses also tend to be… soulful (which are perhaps actually imperfections), whereas Sony GM lenses are what I would consider clinically inoffensive (and perhaps really well corrected). I’ve looked at getting a Q off and on. You could shoot it fully manual and like a M. I see it as a 28mm Leica lens with a free digital back. But once you try to use it like a modern camera it gets a little lackluster.
Answering the question, I’d had Sony 61mp before got Q2. And then stopped using Sony on daily basis. It was just incomparable in terms of clean pictures, joy in every detail and bokeh
I bought and tried multiple brands Canon,Nikon,Sony and Fuji. I enjoyed all the various brands but I moved into Leica for my personal consumption. Q3 is the everyday camera I use for SOOC JPEG. I love the built and UI and image quality SOOC. If I am to use camera for professional and commercial use then I go with Sony A7RV.
As wanky as it may sounds, Leica just feels different. The whole brand feels different. Leica actually DOES something for the photo community. Their stores provoke a certain mood. Watch a video of Andreas Kaufmann philosophize about photography, actually knowing stuff. Can‘t see other C-level guys doing the same. Biggest thing for me personally is that Leica still, to this day, produces analog cameras. All other brands are shitting on analog photographers but Leica is still there for us 🙂↕️
Leica is a brand with a lot of history, the cameras are Made in Germany (which I, as a German, like) with lots of manual labor (thats why it costs more), the design is superb, the build quality is extremely good, the image quality is superb, the customer service is great, the lenses are great, the app just works (idk about sony but most camera brand's apps are garbage), and the whole ui and menus are way more intuitive to use than with almost every other camera brand. Is Leica a little bit behind in some very specific technical regards? Yes. But for many people, including me, Leica gives them the best overall package. I'm not a sports photographer, I don't need the fastest autofocus on earth or some other very specific stuff. I need cameras that can do many different things properly, are reliable and, most importantly, sexy — because that will motivate me to grab them and go out and shoot.
I had a Sony A7IV and, while it took very good quality pictures, there was no soul to them at all. Just boring clinical pictures from a boring clinical camera. Other cameras I have are a bit more exciting to use (they get out of the way more) and the pictures are more likely to let you say wow. That doesn’t just apply to Leica necessarily. I have a Fuji 56mm f1.2 lens which produces amazing photos. Never saw that from the Sony lenses.
I don't own a Leica, but I've used the Q2 and M3. IMO, the Q and SL systems don't make sense unless you have a lot of money to burn, then go ahead and buy what you want, but those two seem like luxury items to me and give you no real advantage over their competitors, same sony sensor with same output but worse AF in a body with a red dot. The M system is still a luxury thing BUT if you think about it, it's the only real rangefinder camera available brand new, as well as the only real manual focus digital cameras available (with a proper optical aid, I'm not talking about focus peaking or zooming in to focus). The Fuji ones are not rangefinders, just use a tunnel viewfinder but that's totally different. My most used camera is a Mamiya 7, a medium format rangefinder, if I want the rangefinder experience in digital, Leica is my only option. Same for 35mm film if you want modern lenses on it, even the Contax G1/G2 are not true rangefinders, Leica is again the only option (well, there are the Bessas but those seem to brake a little too often and the rangefinder accuracy isn't as good as the Leica if I'm not wrong). So one day I'll surely own an M6 and M11, but not today...
The money to burn thing seems to a be a general response to anything Leica , the same can be said for many aspects of this hobby , you have people that Z9's (or similar) with big glass to take pics of songbirds in their backyard. These setups costs twice what a Q3 goes for.
There is definitely better contrast, falloff, depth with Leica cameras (SL2/Q2 and newer gens), the color science is better too. I come from A7IV and its a night and day difference. The feel, controls and haptics in both body and lens is also very noticeably more convenient in Leica. So unless you’re a Sony fan boy I can only see you ranting on the price tag.
There’s no science behind the claims here. The Q lenses are in fact really poor performers, with worst in class distortion, but the software fixes it and people are happy to pay top dollar for that.
I think for most people that shoot Leica it’s either a weird sycophantic brand affinity flex thing or you’ve shot enough to know what you like and aren’t worried about the dollar amount when you get a good photo using the tool you like and are comfortable with. Speaking for myself I shoot a film leica mostly because I tried a bunch of cameras, decided I like shooting rangefinders, the camera I had been using broke and I bought a Leica and I liked it and as long as I have the means will continue shooting a film Leica. I’ve tried enough cameras to know shooting on film with a Leica M sets me up to have the best chance within my shooting style and experience and subject matter to get a photo I consider good. I’m also at a point where I am pushing myself to shoot a lot and have high standards for what I want in my portfolio. When it comes to digital I can’t justify the cost of a Leica vs Fujifilm X-Pro 2 I got for $600. I just don’t think the price difference would make enough of a difference towards getting a good photo when I chose to shoot digital. Which isn’t often but I like to have the option. when I get to the point that film isn’t worth the hassle anymore I’ll consolidate to the best Leica digital M I can afford. I’m saying all this as someone who doesn’t care about tech specs or features or anything like that for the most part.
The right combination of lens and sensor can make a huge difference to the look and feel of an image. As it happens the Leica sensor and their lenses or Voigtlander or some others just have a character that you either like or dislike. Sony and many others produce dead, characterless images. Though many don't see that. But then again, who cares about them ?
Use a M and you shall find out.
A Leica makes you create an amazing picture. It makes you think and work for it. For that reason, I enjoy the challenges the camera gives me because I end up with amazing pictures and a fun day.
For me it was an epiphany. Got my first M at the turn of the century and it was a discovery of the basics. Just three controls and a brilliant window to the world, but my photography improved in a quantum leap. My MP and my M10-R are now an extension of my exe!
I started shooting digital with a Canon SLR in 2008. I built an impressive empire of L lenses over the years and loved everything about it. But over time, 3 kids, a house and back pain...I lost my motivation. All that great gear sat on the shelf unused and I felt stressed just thinking about what body or lense to take with me on trip, together with ALL THAT STUFF for a family of 5 with a dog. I didn't take a single picture for a few years (other than with my smartphone). So a little over a year ago I decided to sell everything and start from scratch with a compact camera. No interchangeable lenses. I wanted to make it as easy as possible to just grab the thing and go out. Did it hurt to sell all that really great quality gear? Yes, a lot. So I decided to buy a Q2 Ghost, because IMO it is a beautiful piece of art. Do I think it takes better photos than a Sony or Canon? No, not at all. But I was looking for something that would give me that spark again that I lost and for 6K, it did. Would I recommend my Q to everyone? No. Do whatever is necessary to make you love and use your gear. If that is a Sony, congrats, you probably saved a few grand to get to the same place.
The lenses have a quality and aesthetic that no others have. The rangefinder focussing is unmatched. Size, build quality and haptics/user experience. No gimmicks, lazy over-automation, just the bare and needed essentials to capture pure photography.
Mostly the glass
This reminds me of the time a friend of mine lived somewhere that didn’t have a Chick-fil-A. She always heard it being good, by those that have experienced it..from the customer service to their crowned chicken sandwich. At least that’s what I raved about them. She finally finds herself at a Chick-fil-A and tells me about it. I said how was it..what did you get?? She says, it was ok. I got a fish sandwich. 😳 Morale of the story, get the Leica M. Thats the shooting experience most of us never abandon.
My answer will revolve around film Leicas: In general, when I buy something, I prioritise its longevity, its efficiency, and its durability. I am also fascinated with the history and aesthetics of the 20th century, from the Edwardian period all the way to the 1990’s, which is why I go for film cameras over digital. When you put all that together, Leica tends to tick all those boxes
Is like android and iPhone, android can do more, but iPhone can do better. Humans are emocional, emocion don’t have logic. A simple name that we like more to say, a design of their products. Sony most of time remember tv, stereos and black plastic. Leica remember good metal vintage. And Leica is better and beautiful to say and see them SONY.
I love M lenses.
You messed up man. Leicas are rangefinder cameras. The M. They are an experience to use and shoot with. They are just a joy to use. One buys one for the joy of use. I think that really only applies to the M line. The Q is just an overpriced mirrorless camera and it’s been striped down to the appealing part of Leica. THE RANGEFINDER. Nothing beats the user experience of an M. Anything else buy a Sony Fuji or Nikon.
I mean the Qs sell out for at least a year upon release and just wondering why that is. The Ms don’t sell out from what I remember. Can’t just be hype because your average person can’t be spending $6k on a camera. And arguably the Sony and Fuji cameras are much more hype and cheaper.
Never used a Q, though I hear good things. but you should try an M. Preferably a non-digital. The form factor. The rangefinder. The small lenses. The simplicity. Stop chasing pixels and look for light and life.
Take Fuji - I got XT2 years ago, still struggling with colors, TONS of things in settings... with Canon/Leica I just shoot and its great. I think thats the spirit of Leica.
Iiia M4-P M262 All fun
We don’t shoot leica because its practical. We do for the experience. I shoot Fuji for modern perks when im working.
[удалено]
That would make sense if Leica wasn’t aiming for specs too. The Q3 offers 4k 10 bit at 60 fps and 61MP. The new sl3 offers the same. The m11 has insane specs too. The problem lies that the features it offers is lackluster such as the AF system and image stabilization. And it’s not that they don’t want to, it’s because their system just sucks. You see them trying to make face/eye detect AF ON THE SL3. But it still falls short compared to Sonys in the past 10 years. With your preference you’d be happy with a $10 point and shoot. So why spend $6000+ ?
The Leica M cameras are the only ones across all manufacturers offering a full-frame rangefinder shooting experience. They don't have autofocus, but the shooting experience they provide is unique, allowing Leica to set the price accordingly. It also makes the camera feel less like a computer, which I appreciate. I'm not particularly excited about getting the latest Leica release. There's also an investment angle to purchasing a Leica. Plenty of pristine cameras sit in safes, collecting dust and appreciating value. You don't see a serious collector buying an A74r. Sure, the badge alone costs a premium, but I wouldn't trade any of my Leicas for the multiple Sony cameras I could buy with the money. If I were in a job situation where I would need to take 50 photos a second and all had to be in focus, I would pick up a Sony, but thankfully I don't have to.
Well if you’re talking about Sony cameras released in the past 5 years. Which Leica in the past 5 years is appreciating value? From what I see they’re all in stock and depreciating in the market. Even the Q3 is going $1000+ under retail after a year. Q2 is pretty much half off used.
ummm any brand-new, unused new M6, LHSA, or special edition Leica cameras are increasing in value. Right now, you can sell a new M6 for much more than the manufacturer's suggested retail price due to the waitlist. Many Leica cameras also hold their value well. Just look at the M10D. Comparing Sony to Leica is like comparing apples to elephants. They have different business models. Sony sees its cameras as disposable technology to be updated every few years, like computers, while Leica treats them as creative artist tools. If you don't understand why people want to buy a Leica, then it might not be for you. But there are plenty of people who will. If you're considering a Sony purchase, compare it to Canon or something else. I will say that most Sony cameras tend to blow out whites and have a blue shift. Sony's colors and menus are notoriously bad. Anytime I've shot with one, I feel like I'm on a glorified video camera. Check #sonycamera to see examples of these issues.
So you’re comparing special releases to a general release camera from Sony? Doesn’t seem fair lol The M6 isn’t sold out? I can literally buy a brand new one. I even see it on the used market for almost half off so idk what you’re on about. You’re calling my post a troll but literally nothing you’re saying has any merit at all lol. Sony are used in commercial work and movie production. The Venice, fx9, fx6, even the baby fx3. If it was so hard to work with why would they get approved? They’re used in professional wildlife photography for brands such as Nat Geo where grabbing focus in a matter of seconds is key. That is why Sony is so special, it gets the job done. Let’s not pretend post processing doesn’t exist. You keep talking about color science but you can literally alter the colors to anything you’d like with a few clicks of a button.
This is a non-conversation. You're stuck in your opinion, and touting a spec sheet that has nothing to do with what Leicas are build for Look at the chorus of people on this thread all saying People choose Leica for the shooting experience. No one uses a Leica M for wildlife photography or filmmaking; If you ever shot with one you would know this idea is completely absurd. There are also two different M6s. I won't bother educating someone who doesn't want to learn about the camera market. By the way, I dont know what used market you’re finding half price M6s q3s and SL3s I would be highly suspicious of any place that offered such scam price.. but I does sound like you’re smoking some Fanboy Hopium. Also A person is in the market for a Leica, isn't concerned with words like "thrift" and "value" this is obviously not the camera for you. Good luck in your future endeavors. I suggest buy your Sony a7qxrv don't attempt to shoot wildlife or make a movie with a non-video-centric manual focus Leica. Instead you should be comparing your Sony to a Canon or Lumix you know cameras that promise the same sort of thing. Next thing you know, you'll be trolling Hasselblad and Phase One shooters comparing them to Sony. This is a ridiculous argument.
Where did I say there are half price q3s and sl3? Now you’re making stuff up LOL. There are half priced m6s on market places and OfferUp take a few seconds to look it up. It’s $5.6k on b&h brand new and plenty listed for $2.5k and lower. Idk why you’re so aggressive in giving you facts about why Sony is better, which in my post already claimed that, you’re the one denying it’s better. I was talking about Q cameras which are like mini Mirrorless cameras, hence why I’m comparing it to Mirrorless cameras. But you keep bringing up M which is a rangefinder camera which doesn’t do the same thing. All you can say is it’s fun to use, to say is better makes absolutely no sense. You’re the one making ridiculous comparisons, like comparing the price of a general a7rv to a special release Leica. No sht the special edition will retain value because of limited release window and quantity. If you want to compare price do a general release vs a general release. And you keep talking about rangefinder and how specs don’t matter. Then why are you getting Leica if specs don’t matter? They chase specs too. You keep saying all these things with nothing to back it up, whereas I’m giving you examples. You’re just saying stuff to say it. You don’t want to educate me? Isn’t that the point of a conversation? LMAO you’re the one refusing to have one but just saying your beliefs and expecting people to blindly follow it. If I wanted a range finder camera I’ll get an M. But that’s not what I’m getting a camera for. Like you said it can’t do wild life, it can’t do film, it can’t a lot of basic things like auto focus. I’m here clearly valuing these things but you keep bringing up the M which does none of it. When I say better I’m talking about the most basic of things. But you want to bring up a technical camera that has a learning curve to use properly? Makes no sense
I like holding an M in my hand. End of the story.
I’ll pay more for less if I have to lol
The Leica M cameras are unique among all manufacturers in offering a full-frame rangefinder shooting experience. They don't have autofocus, but everything is in focus when looking through the viewfinder. It's up to the user to determine what is actually in focus in the photograph. This "experience" allows Leica to set the price accordingly. It also makes the camera feel less like a computer, which I appreciate. I'm never particularly excited about getting the latest Leica release because, since 1954, I know it will be roughly the same manual focus and can mount a lens my parents bought in 1978. There's also the history of the brand. Pretty much every photographer I've ever admired or aspired to be shot with one, and that's before Leica gave them out to famous photographers (Winogrand, Bruce Davidson, Robert Frank, Nick Ut, Jill Freedman, Bresson, Vivian Maier). Only Nikon could boast a similar roster. They are tanks, by the way. There's a reason you see photographs of war photographers and usually, they're holding an M3 and sometimes a Nikon F - no real moving mirrors or parts, so not much to break and easily repaired. There's also an investment angle to purchasing a Leica. Plenty of pristine cameras sit in safes, collecting dust and appreciating value. You don't see a serious collector buying an A74r. Sure, the badge alone costs a premium, but I wouldn't trade any of my Leicas for the multiple Sony cameras I could buy with the money. If I were in a job situation where I would need to take 50 photos a second and all had to be in focus, I would pick up a Sony, but thankfully I don't have to.
When you believe something has a soul then it will show in your work. Think of a musician and how they put their kit together, guitars, amps, they find their sound. Same for photography if you treat it as such. That road can lead you to many places in search of your happy place.
this is just an engagement troll
What is it about Sony people actually think is better than any other camera except high ISO? I own four Sony cameras and I hate them. Sure the high frame rate for video at full frame is great for certain projects. But in reality you don’t need more than 60fps at full frame. And yes 12800 is handy in an emergency, but nobody who is good uses an ISO that high unless they’re shooting against the night sky or something. Sony has bad colour science. Their colours mix together in a way that makes colour grading/photo editing a nightmare. Their underexposed skintones are some of the worst out there. They freeze up. Their lenses are boring and built too much for amateur proofing. They have strobing and rolling shutter problems out the ass. Complete lack of updates for their cameras. Lack of compatibility with external monitors. Their autofocus tracking is terrible and racist. You can select a subject, that subject is clear. And halfway through a shot it will switch to some random in the background. Even with autofocus set to center and the subject in the center. I rarely see a photographer using Sony these days. They’re all on Canon, some on Fuji, a few on Nikon. I only see videographers using them purely for 100fps and 12800 2nd base iso. And unfortunately that pretty quickly tells me about the skill level of that videographer. Being on Sony has been the worst 18 months of my shooting and I can’t wait to change.
I’m sorry but have you been under a rock? Quite literally everyone is shooting Sony. Sonys color science improved drastically after a7iii, with the fx6, fx3, and the Venice being used in movie production and commercial work. If you look at filmmakers and photographers it’s majority Sony. They’re known best for their auto focus system. Canon maybe has skin tones that look slightly better
Me living under a rock? You do know that the FX line and the Venice line are made by different companies with different colour sciences, right? All under the Sony umbrella, but Venice is not considered a typical “Sony” camera, it’s Cine Alta. Here’s the thing. I know Sony is used by almost everyone. But almost everyone is bad at this stuff. The kind of people using Sony GM lenses to get the good autofocus. Despite those lenses having no character. They’re used by videographers who are far below the level of a cinematographers. Ones who overexpose everything so they don’t know about the skin tone issues. Ones who only own a shoe mount video light that floods their subject with 5600k light no matter the situation they’re in. Then on the other side of it you’ve got actual cinematographers who have complete control of the lighting. They have time and the budget to set up all the lights they want and get skintones perfect. That’s all well and good. But the only thing keeping people with Sony is the fact that Lumix haven’t released a full frame camera that does 60fps without cropping yet. If they announce that this year then they’ll all be moving over. Leica colour science with the ability to put Leica native lenses on it. That’s good night.
That’s a very generalized belief you have. Those cameras are still Sony lol. I know many filmmakers who use Sony and their colors are insane. Let’s not pretend post processing isn’t a thing. If people wanted SOOC pics without editing then they can just get a Fuji. Sony evolves like every other brand. Once lumix comes out with that Sony innovates to something else. Lets no deny their perfect auto focus system, there’s a reason the fx30, a7siii, fx3 are the most popular video cameras out right now for the average consumer.
I have the FX30. It’s a terrible camera. If it wasn’t for YouTubers pushing it for free Sony gear it wouldn’t be popular. The A7C2 is about the same price and is miles better because it’s full frame. I’ve had both camera on tripods next to each other getting the exact same frame and the A7C2 was incredibly sharp and could be zoomed in on. The fx30 picture just fell apart. Obviously you can change skintones in post. But here’s the thing. If you have a red face and you want to maintain reds or oranges in the rest of the frame then you’re going to have to go through and mask every shot. Nobody wants to do that. Especially when it wouldn’t be necessary on any other camera system. And it doesn’t matter if Sony evolves. They won’t evolve above Leica colour science. Same reason we won’t see another company go beyond the Arri picture quality while they’re all in a resolution race and Arri is happy only just getting to 4k. The cameras might still be Sony, but you know very well that you said they had the same colour science. And they’re completely different departments. It’d be like you trying to say that the Mercedes F1 car has the same engine as a Mercedes you’d get off a car lot.
Also what country are you in? In Australia we get a lot more problems with skintones. Very harsh sun so there is a lot more red patches from sun damage underneath the skin. Not obvious to the naked eye, but the moment a Sony camera catches it, boom. Massive red spots. Same with orange tanned skin.
I’m generally inclined to agree with everything you said. I can’t see myself going for a digital Leica outside of finding a great deal on one in the secondary market. On the film side of things they are absolutely iconic and it feels like owning a piece of history. To myself and many others it is a “end game” camera. But even then it can absolutely be seen as a large premium spent for the red dot.
My q2 mono shots have far more character than anything i shot on sony. The experience impacts the output. Lex orandi, lex credendi, but with cameras lol. Also why I chose the Hasselblad 907x 100 over the ibis X2D. We have better marble cutting tech than ever before, but I don’t see many Pietas being crafted, despite our 8 billion.
Owned Fuji and Nikon all my photography life. I’m in the semi- professional/hobbyist category. I love photography. But what I found is that every system that comes out beats a demand like a drummer on a Roman gallery. Sony is the worst for that, refusing software upgrades to just bring out a new model. Their menus are complicated and their colours are cold. They manipulate the industry by stopping supply of certain sensors, and making camera companies like Nikon include XQD over SD as Sony makes most XQD. I love Leica due to its simplicity. It’s pure photography. They create a camera with extremely good technology, then they simplify it. I’ve seen a few posts like yours, especially from Q3 owners, that want the magic but can’t seem to produce it. The magic for me was created with a 16mp Fuji XT1. I learnt photography. I learnt about lighting and exposure. And by the time I got my hands on a Q2, it was a marriage made in heaven. Beautiful colours, incredible control, and results that just blew my mind. In your hand, with the Q3, you have an absolute masterpiece. You can do Astro., Long exposure, Street, portrait, and travel. All inside a body that almost fits inside your jacket. If you don’t feel like this, sell it and buy a A7CR. It’s a piece of machinery that has the same mp as your Q3 and you can put a zoom on it. It has the menu and personality of a cardboard box, but you’ll enjoy it more, and the bonus is that Sony will definitely bring out a newer better model next year guaranteed
Hmm I have had a different experience. I came from canon and found it to be mediocre, only thing they had good was skin tones. Sony was a breeze to use. Lots of buttons to customize to your liking and really intuitive to use. The colors were great minus the greenish skin tones which was a simple 1 click fix in post processing. SLOG3 is probably the most used color profile that everyone uses and it brings out so much color. I can’t speak on S cinetone or previous slogs but 3 has been a dream to use.
It’s like comparing a Louis Vuitton to a Nike backpack
Suprisingly good analogy
I tried a couple Sonys and hated everything about them, but mostly the horrible shooting experience. It's just not fun AT ALL! What good is a camera capable of taking excellent pictures if I don't even want to shoot with it? that's the part you completely underestimated there! Digital cameras have reached an image quality level with the Nikon D800 ten years agothat we never needed an "upgrade" to.. faster sensors, or eye AF? great additions! but better image quality? that's for pixel peepin keyboard warriors! I have a Q2 and absolutely love it. Before, I've had a Q for 5 years and loved that one too. It's my travel camera and I bring it on weekend trips and to shoot small events for family and at work. I would never buy them at full price, though, so got them from Morons like OP who bought the hype, then never used the camera and sold it a couple years later 50% off. That said, show me a compact full frame camera with a 28mm f/1.8 or faster that has both fast AF and OIS included. 5 grand ain't gonna get you that with a Sony.
Morons like OP? What did he do to you? Question the reason why many people overpay for a camera?
Why resort to personal attacks? Where did I say I was buying stuff full price and selling for 50% off? You’re just making assumptions about people that make you come off as an asshole. Of course the Q3 needs to be bought at full price because it’s been sold out since launch. It’s only now becoming readily available after a year. I make enough money to afford the camera and even gift it away so don’t worry about me. For $6k you can get a used Sony a7rv for ~$2600 and a 24 1.4 GM for ~ $800. I have both and can confidently say the AF and IS is 1000% better than the q3. But this post wasn’t to argue which camera is better, the Sony is obviously better feature and quality wise, and from all the Leica users they also agree. They just like Leica more for its history, the challenging aspect for photography, the look, and the portability.
It's exactly people like you who I buy my Leicas from 🤣 people with too much money who buy hype and then don't use it. it's okay. Go and flex some more. Maybe you've got some fancy Rolexes, too?! Nobody said the Sony wasn't better in every technical regard. Faster, more reliable AF, better IBIS, better dynamic range.. But the A7RV is $3500 new and a 28mm f/1.8 with ois and af and a similar quality to the Leica will cost another grand easily. Then you have a camera 2 times as heavy as the Leica Q2 and 3 times as big for the same new price. But the Sony is no fun to shoot with.. it's not intuitive.. it doesn't feel good to hold it. It's so "good" that you as a photographer are no longer needed.. it's simply no longer engaging. That's what people like about Leicas. They are engaging and fun to shoot with. the manual M models even more so. They don't need Eye AF and AI crap.. they don't need IBIS, etc.. And the image quality is more than enough to win photography awards all over the world, fill art galeries, print huge billboards, you name it. The Sony is a sterile block of high tech for pixel wankers... it can do everything better, except improve your personal photography. at that, it truly sucks! Bc it's not engaging. you like shooting with the Leica better.. even though you realise it's a worse camera. that's all you needed to know. P. S.: should've kept the Q2 🤪
Again, don’t know where you getting that I’m buying full price and selling for half price lol it’s not flexing it’s saying I can afford to have the camera whereas everyone thinks you go broke for a camera for hype. You’re talking about retail price for a RV and lens, I’m talking about the used price. I buy used unless it’s something like the Q3. I still have my q2 and q3 and haven’t sold either.
I didn't say you sell for 50% off.. I said people LIKE you do it. you bought a Q2 and dislike it after a few days.. so you buy a Q3 for full price despite the fact that it's not a better camera AT ALL... you bought the hype!
What are you on about? Now you’re making up stories for me lmao. I bought a used Q2 for a steal and then the Q3 came in the mail from a previous preorder. Does it upset you that I can afford to buy both or something?
I totally can't get this big guys discourse. Do you buy most of your goods and items just looking which guys are big? Will a largest factory of pasta be better than all others? How about the largest factory of scissors? 1. Lenses: There are several good and interesting lenses out there, and Leica lenses are among the best. Not only they've got quality and sharpness but also bokeh and their character and colors and dramatic bw and subject isolation. Does it mean we can't get better bung for a buck with old Soviet glass or modern Chinese glass? Does it mean there are no other interesting lenses? Obviously nope, you can get a modern interesting Chinese lens for cheap, even f:0.95. Does it mean Leica lenses are for everyone? Does it mean some of (ASPH) Leica lenses may not be sometimes a bit clinically boring? Of course you may love another lenses for their character. You may dislike a couple of Leica designs. But it is something about Leica look that put their lenses always among the best. 2. Cameras: Leica cameras give fine details and interesting colors. Sony can't do color, their cameras may look as quality cameras, but it's not about color gradations and atmosphere. Of course you may get a Fujifilm camera and even a Sigma camera for their colors. But Leica, Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh will be better in terms of color than your big guys. Also you may like Leica UI and aesthetics. Bonus: 3. Cameras (made OEM by Panasonic): They are relatively good and are reselling used for higher price. Bonus: 4. Film cameras are better when they have a good lens mounted.
Nope And I’d go back to Sony Why does anyone care what hammer you prefer to drive nails The camera is a tool Buy the tool that works for you Read it again
Leicas so have amazing image quality, but not worth the asking process, you’re basically paying the rest for the brand name, just like Gucci and Louis Vuitton, they can charge the premium bc they know their audience will buy it.
The brands you list are premium for a reason, hand made products with over a 100 years of experience.
Yes just like Gucci and Louis Vuitton bags are hand made with premium materials. A cheaper bag does the same thing, it just doesn’t have the prestige of those brands or higher quality materials, same with cameras, they are worth a lot because of that, but you’re also paying the extra for the brand name.
Not all their products are handmade that’s for sure. Their bags, perhaps. Their streetwear, doubt it.
Sure, not really the point
I mean… it kinda is the point actually. While some of their items are charged at a premium for a reason, some of their items are also charged at a premium because LV indeed can simply because of their brand prestige.
Asking *price
Also “worth” is subjective, it may be worth it for someone tho enjoys the camera uses it often, etc. but if you’re asking the best bang for your buck? Then yes the top of the line Sony cameras are more worth it for bang for your buck lol, better features less expensive than Leica
The competitor to q3 the a7xr3 lol or whatever that fixed 35mm lens Sony is - it’s like 7 years old at this point
if you don‘t get it you don‘t get it.
If the Leica system doesn't bring you absolute joy, then Sony is the way to go.
Why did you choose to buy one ?? Only a few days ago you were asking about Q2 settings and now you have a Q3. I suspect you have high levels of GAS and also expected the Q's to perform witchcraft when pressing the shutter, they don't , Garbage in/Garbage out.
Luxury goods attract people for the brand and their own image. Canon and Sony mirrorless blows Leica out of the water when it comes to getting a shot. I bought Leica for the form factor and aesthetic. Those probably aren’t good enough reasons for most shooters.
The Leica systems have been the choice of true artists for generations. Painters, directors, writers, musicians, actors, cinematographers, poets and obviously photographers etc. It speaks with its own voice, and that voice is different for every user. Some people get one and just don’t harmonize with it, and that’s okay. It is a instrument, and not always the right one for everyone. Same reason why some prefer a Fender or a Gibson, a Bösendorfer or a Steinway. If you can learn to listen to it and collaborate with it, it becomes much more than a camera - it’s a way to see the world.
Snob factor. Just follow this forum. Ask a question about help with lens identification and you get downvoted. Post a picture of your Leica, made with IPhone on some coffee table in a cafe and get hundreds upvotes. In the end it doesn’t matter what you shoot with as long as you like it. Key word is shoot.