Leica Q for backpacking

[Gary Pikovsky]

Outside of the price seems like THE perfect cam for the outdoors. Anyone use it yet?

20oz
BEST IMAGE QUALITY I’ve seen on a camera
28mm Leica Summilux 1.7 lens. Killer bokeh. Wow.
Auto crops to 35mm (very usable) and 50mm (somewhat usable)
FULL FRAME
Mad fast autoocus – DSLR speed
Pleasure to use
Great battery life in the cold
Thumbs up – great grip add-on for the cold – 1.4oz
(Last two pics shot in White Mountains, NH this weekend)

[Ian]

It’s a lovely camera.  It’s a $4300 camera.

If I were rich and in the market for a fixed focal length camera, I’d personally go with the Fuji X100T or Ricoh GR, pocket the $3000/$3600 difference, and take my wife to Ankor Wat for a few days on a photography tour :)

Teasing.  It’s very much a drool worthy camera.

 

[Gary Pikovsky]

–

[Gary Pikovsky]

I see your point about the high price tag.

But. Think about this.

Take a standard SLR, add a few ND and polarizing filters, a wide angle and portrait lens, some more filters for the latter and bag – you’ll come out far past the price of the Q. And it will be heavier, more bulky and will need a bigger pack, more supportive boots, etc, etc. The Q has all the above in one tiny camera that weighs 20oz AND takes better pictures.

[Steve Chan]

Take a standard SLR, add a few ND and polarizing filters, a wide angle and portrait lens, some more filters for the latter and bag – you’ll come out far past the price of the Q. And it will be heavier, more bulky and will need a bigger pack, more supportive boots, etc, etc. The Q has all the above in one tiny camera that weighs 20oz AND takes better pictures.

But you are comparing apples to orangina here. You get a fixed lens camera (granted, it’s a summilux) without a bunch of filters or a portrait lens.

A more reasonable comparison would be versus a Sony RX1R2, which has a ‘Zeiss’ lens that more than keeps up with the Leica Q (looking at the DPReview test, the RX1R2 seems to have better corner performance, and the bokeh seems at least as good in the shots I’ve seen), resolution that allows you to crop aggressively enough to get to short telephoto while still having pixels to spare, good ergos and $1000 savings. As well as being somewhat smaller and lighter.

The reviews I’ve seen show the Leica Q coming in ahead in terms of AF performance, and if 28mm works better for your framing, that is that (though I think that Sony panoramic mode works better for many types of landscape scenes) and of course a Leica is a serious fetish object that no amount of ‘Zeiss’ badging can overcome. The Leica Q looks like a pretty awesome camera, but the price tag includes a pretty serious red dot markup.

[Ian]

Gary, it’s a Leica.  I get it.  Above and beyond image quality, there should be some joy in the process.  I’m currently carrying an A6000 which is a very capable camera for the money.  But, shooting stills with a Fuji would be a far more enjoyable experience for me due to the retro feel.  Same goes for that Leica.

If you have it in your budget, have fun with it and tell us all about it.  It looks really sweet.

[Stuart .]

I used to own a few Leica M rangefinders back in the film days. Once they switched to digital, I was priced out of the market.

What I loved about Leica was the simplicity of using a rangefinder. Plus the lenses were so compact compared with those on SLRs. And the image quality was something far beyond any other camera system I had owned before.

But if I’m honest, ergonomics wasn’t the strong point of the M rangefinder. Specifically the shape of the camera body made it difficult to hold comfortably for long periods. I was much happier with an accessory grip or a leather half case with some padding that created a grip of sorts. I say this because the design of the Q is very reminiscent of the M rangefinder.

Oh, and there is something else that irks me. “Summilux” always stood for f/1.4, not 1/2 a stop less. Although there were no f/1.7 lenses in their line-up when I was using Leicas.

Since switching to digital, the common factor I have found among brands is that I have to fight the camera’s UI to get what I want. Nothing has been intuitive the way my M rangefinders were. Until I picked up a Ricoh GR. It still vexes me once in a while, but it’s the closest I have found to the handling of my M rangefinders. And it also has a 28mm effective focal length. Tricky for backpacking, but wonderful for atmospheric portraits (ie images that show the subject and his/her environs) and street photography.

[[ Drew ]]

I have a list of a few dozen things that are also PERFECT…. outside of the price.  If only money was no object.

Also, many would argue that 28mm is a bit too wide for an ‘outdoors camera’.  A fixed lens somewhere in the 16-24mm range would be closest to perfect (most landscape photogs).  Like the RX1r and RX1R M2, the Leica Q would make a fantastic street camera, which is exactly what all three of those were designed as.

For a fraction of the cost I’d go with an APS-C Fuji X100T (~35mm equiv) with their wide angle convertor.  Lighter weight, looks just as cool without being pretentious/ostentatious.  For the money you’d save over the Q, you could get a full high end ULBP gear setup.

 

 

[Tipi Walter]

A backpacking camera has to fit inside my shorts pocket.  Otherwise . . .

This is an UL backpacking forum and so of course I get ragged on carrying a heavy tent.  Anyone complaining about the weight of this camera?

[Colin M]

I’ve owned 3 Leica’s and will probably never own another. Great glass but there are 2 major flaws:

1. Sensors are way outdated compared to Nikon/Sony and don’t have near the dynamic range of the competition.
2. Software is insanely bad (this is the bigger issue)

There were known firmware issues that should have been resolved for years that Leica didn’t bother to fix. This is so incredibly unacceptable for a supposed pro-level camera that I will never give them another penny. My hiking camera is a Fuji XPro-2 and I’m quite pleased with it though if I’m doing night shots I use a Nikon D750.

[Woubeir (from Europe)]

oh, as this website still calls BackpackingLIGHT and not BPUL, I still consider this a lightweight forum. :-)

Cameras and image quality are, like other things, personal. We have a small and light compact camera (next to and old analog SLR) but the images from it are clearly inferior to those of the ‘heavy’ DSLR of my sister.

[Ian]

NM.  I should know better than to take the bait.

[Gary Pikovsky]

IMO, after any backpacking trip is done what you have left is a better/worse body, memories and pics. If the pics are simply fantastic then that’s worth the weight of a 20oz camera.

Now for some specifics.

For a full frame cam the Leica Q is now the lightest in the world. (RX1 is heavier when everything is included – EVF, filters, wide angle adapter, 4-5 Sony batteries to Leica’s 2) The Q’s fastest shutter speed is 16000, so no need for ND filter. The dynamic range is fantastic (13) – so no need for polarizing filter. The big reveal is that the 28mm Summilux lens is actually a 24mm. I tested it with Leica viewfinders at the Leica store and against Canon 5D. A little secret Leica for some reason won’t tell you… With an option to shoot at 24mm (24 megapixels) cropped 35mm (17 megapixels) and 50mm (8 megapixels), you got at least a wide and a portrait lens on the cam already. Don’t need to bring that along. That saves you a whopping 2-3lbs if you use a DSLR!! That’s about the same in $$$ saved. Something to think about.

Also, RX1 lasts 15-30 minutes, if that, when the temps really drop. Many other cameras stop working at that time completely. Sometimes weight is not everything.

In the end, at least for me, the Q makes a lot of sense.

[Colin M]

Firmly agree with Gary that all you have is the pictures and memories so if photography is important, it’s one area I happily add weight!

I do understand the desire to see what the Leica mystique is all about (as I said, I’ve owned 3) but I’m happy to stick with my Fuji XPro-2 and D750 having tried and failed to produce images that matched the quality of even the original Canon 5D. If you take away the Leica mystique, you realize they are inferior and overpriced luxury items, not the tools they are touted to be. I may be biased though as I’m a professional photographer so end results greatly outweigh other considerations for my needs.

[Gary Pikovsky]

I’m a professional photographer as well and have used and compared many cameras over the years. Yes, there’s a Leica mystique. But, photo quality and experience-wise, nothing comes close to Leica M240 and Leica Q. The color is spectacular and the dynamic range is up there just shy of the best D800s. I’ve used Sony RX1s, A7I, A7S, A7RII, Ricohs, Canons, Nikons, whatever – not the same spectacular end result and color. May be subjective, but for me that’s how it is.

That said, I’ll still use Canon or Nikon dslr body for actual photoshoots that require ultra-fast focus and and for extreme sports. But for the soul, and when backpacking – it’s Leica all the way. For sure.

Plus, with the new Q the focus is pretty much the same speed as Nikon and Canon (if you don’t like the rangefinder options.) I can tell you that because I used it as a backup camera in a shoot with Canon. Same number of pics in the end, 95% in focus. Not trying to be Leica fan boy, just thought I’d share something I learned a long the way that could help some people here, since I’ve been looking for a camera like this for over a decade.

[[ Drew ]]

Colin,

How are you liking the XPro-2?  I’m really close to ordering an XT-2, but I do prefer a left-side EVF.  Do you regret not having a tilting screen?  I get a lot of use out of the tilt screen for low shots.  Also, why not use the XPro-2 for night shots with either the Samyang 12mm F2 or Fuji 10-24?  Just curious.

[Colin M]

How does the banding not drive you crazy? Banding is a huge pet peeve of mine and the Q show’s it at all ISO’s in the shadows and pretty much everywhere at high iso’s. I have not personally shot the Q but have shot the m240 and was HUGELY disappointed. Same old Leica from what I saw. Loved my M6TTL but they are always 5 years behind the curve in their digital iterations.

Sorry if I’m coming off as combative to you personally as everyone has their own preferences!  I firmly believe that 99.9% of even pro photographers will get better results with other cameras but there’s always that .1%!

[Colin M]

Drew:  XPro-2 is everything I wish leica would be (except possibly to be FF though that’s really an overrated feature given how well it handles noise).  If you use the flippy screen I’d go XT2. I hate them on DSLR’s I work with but for backpacking and the tiny tripod I use I sure wish the screen popped up to avoid laying on the ground in the rain!

For night work the Xpro-2  is no slouch though it takes a ton of post processing to get it to look like this whereas the D750 requires almost no work. Below is XP2 image

Sorry to hijack the thread!

[Gary Pikovsky]

You did hijack the thread.

When you say “full frame is an overrated feature given how well it handles noise” it’s a bit hard to take you seriously… Also, when you say there’s “banding” everywhere on the Q, “but I have not personally shot the Q” – even harder to take you seriously…

But I’ll respond, I guess. Banding is not a problem on the Q or the M240 – I have both cameras and used the M240 extensively. I don’t shoot above 3200 ISO and use a micro tripod at night when needed. Sure Nikons and some Canons can go higher on the ISO, no question

[Colin M]

Easy there Gary. Great if you love the Q, I’m just not in that camp and have extensive experience with Leica’s (6TTL, M8, M9 and M240) as well as having processed files from the Q. You asked for opinions about the camera so I gave it. Many anti-Leica people have no experience with them but in fact, I do. Therefore I offered you my opinion, based on my experience, that the Q is not everything it looks like on paper.

Glad you like your camera!

 

[Roger Caffin]

Different folks, different strokes.

It used to be ALL about the glass. Film – you could pick and choose what you wanted. But today there are other factors to consider – the sensor size, the dynamic range, the noise levels, the user interface, and the sheer physical volume of the camera. I am sure the Leica glass is good, but it seems that the other factors are not so good?

And the size of the camera would seem to mean carrying it is difficult, and getting it out for a quick impromptu photo would be far less likely. You will miss a ton of good photos that way.

Cheers

[Colin M]

Roger: For bags for the Q or any smaller mirrorless system, the Zpacks 4 in 1 is a great solution that allows easy access and comfortable chest carry. I just finished Wonderland in 4 1/2 days of mixed weather (from rain and strong winds to near 80’s) and couldn’t be more pleased. Even allowed for a pre-dawn shot of some mountain goats I accidentally stumbled into the middle of. I had about 10 seconds before they noticed me and bolted. Not a great pic but an awesome memory I’m glad to have on “film!”  http://zpacks.com/accessories/backpack_lid.shtml

[Gary Pikovsky]

Yep – Roger I use the zpacks backpack lid with a custom cut foam pad to make shape.

[Roger Caffin]

Well, OK, but it’s huge!

I tried some things like that (front packs) and they made me sweat something awful, and obstructed my vision around my feet badly. But then I use a Canon G15 at the moment, and it fits in such nice pouch on my shoulder strap.

I can get the camera out single-handed and take a photo single-handed in seconds. And since 99.99% of all photos are never seen at any higher magnification than a screen, the 12 Mpixels are just fine.

Ah well, just my 2c, and my preferences.

Cheers

[Gary Pikovsky]

Yep – that’s the only downside of the Q, I think. Fully agreed. To mitigate that I started using Peak Design capture clip and can pull the camera out in less than a second now.

[Author]

Posts