Texas_Stars wrote:Every morning I am hoping to see an official announcement regarding the Leica Q3 and what lens it will have ... waiting ... waiting ... hoping for my choice, but only time will tell ... hope for good news sometime this year.Am I the only one waiting and hopeful?A recent interview of Stefan Daniels I read seemed to indicate that a longer focal length Q model might happen, but there was neither a notion of certainty nor timing as yet. The Q line is a very popular model, the Q2 is just great, and seems to be selling very well. A Q2L with a 43mm lens would be almost ideal from my perspective, since it splits the difference between a 35 and 50 mm model and is technically the "ideal normal" for a 24x36 mm format camera.I do a lot of my photography with the SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special on the M10-M and M4-2 ... it's a marvelous and versatile focal length and lens speed.At present, I'm kinda planning to get myself an M10-R body to match my M10-M with a color camera, as soon as I sell off the several boxes of excellent but mostly unused equipment in the closet. However, Q2L or Q3 differentiated by a 35 to 50mm lens from the original 28mm would be an attractive alternative since the Q2 sensor has enough pixel resolution to work well even with a hefty crop to simulate the longer focal lengths. Or maybe I should just get a Q2 and leave it at that... LOL!Ah, first world problems...G

Jagganatha wrote:A UK dealer has a stock of about 30 secondhand Q2 cameras right now. Perhaps you can tell me why anyone would wish to get rid of a Q2?Or pay about £4000 for one with a mere 6 months guarantee?I have heard tales of dust on the sensor, and in the viewfinder: I have seen examples of extraordinary banding in normal indoor lighting, so my first demand is that these do not occur EVER again, and that weatherproofing and dustproofing is actually for real, in every camera at any price, simply as the bog-standard basis of viable manufacture for use of an electrical object that once wet dies forever. A £5000 useless lump of glass and metals, hmmm.My Q3 has a fast 24-70mm or 14-35mm zoom. Cleverly it maintains your framelines of choice in your EVF as you zoom in or out, rather like the optical tunnel that the Contax G2 has, but with accuracy and space outside the frame to let you see where your chosen focal length is in relation to reality. As now, in other words, but with the advantage that you stay at the same resolution, and the same frame size whatever the focal length.The lenses are interchangeable with all L series lenses, but it is likely only the Leica branded lenses will give you such framelines for your field of view, because to exist, as now, the focal length of the lens has to be wider than it is specified.On my planet there is progress. We do not cheat customers through planned obsolescence as you earthlings do, and when it says 50 years on the base of a camera as its lifespan it will not fail to last that long and work perfectly, because we leave the lead in our solder and printed circuits, which the EU RoHS Germans do not do.....I think Le Chef is right ...However, I think what you have "heard" (which often enough means: read somewhere) applied to the Leica Q. That first version of the Qs wasn't weather sealed.Possible?

deednets wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Texas_Stars wrote:Karl Huber wrote:You are not alone.I am hoping for a 35mm Q3.My hopes for a CL2 were dashed, so I'm hoping for better luck this time.We may see a 35mm Q3 before we see a 50mm Q4 … I hope one of us gets our wish; however, the manner in which others have addressed this topic is to explain that the Q2 body may not be large enough to accommodate a longer focal length.DavidNonsense, the RX1 series has a Zeiss 35/2 and is smaller and lighter than the Q/Q2.camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.In short: I am ok with the Q2's conversion to 35/2.1as I really value the wider part of this camera. Without giving up on the nice bokeh at 35mm.Agree to disagree?DeedIt's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2.  I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around.  The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortion

Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Texas_Stars wrote:Karl Huber wrote:You are not alone.I am hoping for a 35mm Q3.My hopes for a CL2 were dashed, so I'm hoping for better luck this time.We may see a 35mm Q3 before we see a 50mm Q4 … I hope one of us gets our wish; however, the manner in which others have addressed this topic is to explain that the Q2 body may not be large enough to accommodate a longer focal length.DavidNonsense, the RX1 series has a Zeiss 35/2 and is smaller and lighter than the Q/Q2.camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.In short: I am ok with the Q2's conversion to 35/2.1as I really value the wider part of this camera. Without giving up on the nice bokeh at 35mm.Agree to disagree?DeedIt's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortioncan you post a sample pic with the above mentioned distortion coming from your q2?

Modlin wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Texas_Stars wrote:Karl Huber wrote:You are not alone.I am hoping for a 35mm Q3.My hopes for a CL2 were dashed, so I'm hoping for better luck this time.We may see a 35mm Q3 before we see a 50mm Q4 … I hope one of us gets our wish; however, the manner in which others have addressed this topic is to explain that the Q2 body may not be large enough to accommodate a longer focal length.DavidNonsense, the RX1 series has a Zeiss 35/2 and is smaller and lighter than the Q/Q2.camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.In short: I am ok with the Q2's conversion to 35/2.1as I really value the wider part of this camera. Without giving up on the nice bokeh at 35mm.Agree to disagree?DeedIt's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortioncan you post a sample pic with the above mentioned distortion coming from your q2?The distortion is only objectionable with portraits, but who wants to post a photo that makes someone look bad? Those get deleted. If you put someone's head too close to the edges, their forehead is stretched badly, much worse than with an optically well-corrected 28mm lens.

highdesertmesa wrote:Modlin wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Texas_Stars wrote:Karl Huber wrote:You are not alone.I am hoping for a 35mm Q3.My hopes for a CL2 were dashed, so I'm hoping for better luck this time.We may see a 35mm Q3 before we see a 50mm Q4 … I hope one of us gets our wish; however, the manner in which others have addressed this topic is to explain that the Q2 body may not be large enough to accommodate a longer focal length.DavidNonsense, the RX1 series has a Zeiss 35/2 and is smaller and lighter than the Q/Q2.camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.In short: I am ok with the Q2's conversion to 35/2.1as I really value the wider part of this camera. Without giving up on the nice bokeh at 35mm.Agree to disagree?DeedIt's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortioncan you post a sample pic with the above mentioned distortion coming from your q2?The distortion is only objectionable with portraits, but who wants to post a photo that makes someone look bad? Those get deleted. If you put someone's head too close to the edges, their forehead is stretched badly, much worse than with an optically well-corrected 28mm lens.well, that is rather obvious/default...I and anyone familiar with wide angle lenses knows that...I thought that he had something else in mind citing 'distortion'

Modlin wrote:highdesertmesa wrote:Modlin wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Texas_Stars wrote:Karl Huber wrote:You are not alone.I am hoping for a 35mm Q3.My hopes for a CL2 were dashed, so I'm hoping for better luck this time.We may see a 35mm Q3 before we see a 50mm Q4 … I hope one of us gets our wish; however, the manner in which others have addressed this topic is to explain that the Q2 body may not be large enough to accommodate a longer focal length.DavidNonsense, the RX1 series has a Zeiss 35/2 and is smaller and lighter than the Q/Q2.camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.In short: I am ok with the Q2's conversion to 35/2.1as I really value the wider part of this camera. Without giving up on the nice bokeh at 35mm.Agree to disagree?DeedIt's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortioncan you post a sample pic with the above mentioned distortion coming from your q2?The distortion is only objectionable with portraits, but who wants to post a photo that makes someone look bad? Those get deleted. If you put someone's head too close to the edges, their forehead is stretched badly, much worse than with an optically well-corrected 28mm lens.well, that is rather obvious/default...I and anyone familiar with wide angle lenses knows that...I thought that he had something else in mind citing 'distortion'I took some series of portraits with the Q2, at maybe 80cm to a meter distance and didn't find any distortion worth mentioning in the 60-70% of the frame centre. Posting on a phone otherwise, if interested, I could post some pics later?

Texas_Stars wrote:JDLaing50 wrote:It’ll have a 28mm lens. You’ll be waiting a while for the announcement.I can understand this situation you speak of.Apple does not change the basic focal length of the iPhone … they stay with a winner; so, Leica too plays the same game for financial success. Their business-model algorithm may be different than what I hope it would be … waiting … hoping for 50mm.DavidI have nothing particularly negative to say about a 50mm lens unless it's the only lens permanently attached to a camera.Everyone has an opinion, but for me, 50mm is too long for many situations, especially for indoor casual shots, in an average size room.I don't have a Q2, but do own a Sony RX1 series camera that has a 35mm lens, and although I love the lens, I have instances where even it is a little longer than I'd like.I honestly think Leica hit the sweet spot with the 28mm, but as I said, that's just a personal opinion.

Because design and construction of the Q/Q2 is so different from ICL cameras, the task of adding lenses of different focal lengths is not easy. The shutter is built into the lens and the lens is built into the camera - there’s no mount - and the sensor position is optimized for that setup. To add 35 or 50 or 75 would require re-engineering the camera from the ground up. And that’s before you add the complexities of OIS.If you want to know what a 28-70mm Q2 would look like then look across at the SL2 with the 28-70 f2.8 zoom lens. The lens alone is 850g or so. The body alone weighs 835g. The Q2 complete is 718g so you can see the advantage of a fixed lens with built in shutter just on weight alone.It’s likely a Q2 “Vario” with 28-70mm would be closer to the size and weight of the SL + 28-70mm than the current Q2. If we believe from gossip that the next generation Q will have a 60MP sensor and will possibly have “pixel binning”, why do you need to add more weight, more complexity, greater size and greater cost, when you can achieve all the zooming of a 28-70 lens simply by using a more densely packed sensor?So apart from the added cost of R&D that requires payback, the new variants would not only cost more but would cause the camera to lose compactness particularly if you wanted the lenses to be fast around 1.4 to 1.8 and still autofocus.And finally there’s the added complexity of production - more parts to produce and store, and for dealers more SKU’s that requires more capital.The easier and cheaper solution is to bump the sensor up to 60MP and let people learn how to crop from 28mm.

Texas_Stars wrote:Jay OC wrote:I’m still waiting for the CL2 announcement. 😁I seriously thought about the CL, but at the time I had recently bought a D850 because of all the Nikkor lenses I already had, and passed on the CL when rumors were that it was soon to be discontinued.a couple years later, I find that the Nikon system is too heavy for me. The CL and its lenses were at a perfect price point for my budget.DavidThen there's no time like the present.  The CL is still the great camera it was 3mos ago, prior to the cancellation.  Fantastic, size, weight, imagery, price, lenses...........

Modlin wrote:highdesertmesa wrote:Modlin wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Texas_Stars wrote:Karl Huber wrote:You are not alone.I am hoping for a 35mm Q3.My hopes for a CL2 were dashed, so I'm hoping for better luck this time.We may see a 35mm Q3 before we see a 50mm Q4 … I hope one of us gets our wish; however, the manner in which others have addressed this topic is to explain that the Q2 body may not be large enough to accommodate a longer focal length.DavidNonsense, the RX1 series has a Zeiss 35/2 and is smaller and lighter than the Q/Q2.camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.In short: I am ok with the Q2's conversion to 35/2.1as I really value the wider part of this camera. Without giving up on the nice bokeh at 35mm.Agree to disagree?DeedIt's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortioncan you post a sample pic with the above mentioned distortion coming from your q2?The distortion is only objectionable with portraits, but who wants to post a photo that makes someone look bad? Those get deleted. If you put someone's head too close to the edges, their forehead is stretched badly, much worse than with an optically well-corrected 28mm lens.well, that is rather obvious/default...I and anyone familiar with wide angle lenses knows that...I thought that he had something else in mind citing 'distortion'I think you missed what I said, I said it's much worse than a well-corrected 28mm such as the Ultron II. In the central area of the frame, it's fine, but near the edges, the distortion correction required for the Q lens stretches the image much, much more.

Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.It's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortionUnfortunately, I've seen this myth passed around the internet.  The 28 Summilux, uness perspective or distortion is forced by excessive camera angle or proximity, it is pretty much distortion free.  This horse has been beaten to death and yet some still spread this information.

DenverSteve wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.It's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortionUnfortunately, I've seen this myth passed around the internet. The 28 Summilux, uness perspective or distortion is forced by excessive camera angle or proximity, it is pretty much distortion free. This horse has been beaten to death and yet some still spread this information.LOL. Try looking at the 28 Lux on the Q with distortion correction turned off. Yes, of course the distance to subject will lessen the effects. But how many portraits have you taken lately at infinity? Probably zero, right? Even at infinity, though, the distortion toward the corners makes it difficult to keep the same IQ in the corners as you'd have with a 28 like the CV 28 Ultron II. Look, I have owned multiple Q/Q2 cameras, and I think they are wonderful machines that can and do make great images. But don't delude yourself about the distortion of the lens – it's insane. But it just so happens that not much is lost after it's been corrected and cropped, so for most uses, it's a great lens/camera.

highdesertmesa wrote:DenverSteve wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.It's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortionUnfortunately, I've seen this myth passed around the internet. The 28 Summilux, uness perspective or distortion is forced by excessive camera angle or proximity, it is pretty much distortion free. This horse has been beaten to death and yet some still spread this information.LOL. Try looking at the 28 Lux on the Q with distortion correction turned off. Yes, of course the distance to subject will lessen the effects. But how many portraits have you taken lately at infinity? Probably zero, right? ......You are correct.  It's the same number of portraits that I've taken with a 28mm lens placed too close to the subject. None........... I choose the proper lens for the job.

DenverSteve wrote:highdesertmesa wrote:DenverSteve wrote:Verus wrote:deednets wrote:Verus wrote:camerasize.comWhat you might ant to take on board though is - have argued this before as it was one of my "wants" regarding the Q/Q2 - that you can crop to a 30Mpx image and roughly 35mm F2.1-ish.Since the 24Mpx files of the RX1/RX1r were already fantastic in my opinion, I can't see how the Q2 with its 30Mpx would be any worse. Have tested the cropabilities of the Q2 and find it excellent.With the added bonus of around 25/26mm when you feel the need for it. Might require using software like Capture One though.DeedFor me a 35mm fl would give the shallower DOF which I would love - especially for portraitsI found the 35/2 fabulous for portraits that would include some environment. For "true" portraits I wouldn't use a 35mm.In fact I bought the sensational Batis 40/2, a bit longer, but the F2 is just what I seem to like.Again: unless I use true portrait lenses.It's certainly a fair point. I still prefer the perspective of a true 35/f2. I'm a huge fan of my Q2 and I use it 90% of the time as my walk around. The only thing I dislike about the 28 is the distortionUnfortunately, I've seen this myth passed around the internet. The 28 Summilux, uness perspective or distortion is forced by excessive camera angle or proximity, it is pretty much distortion free. This horse has been beaten to death and yet some still spread this information.LOL. Try looking at the 28 Lux on the Q with distortion correction turned off. Yes, of course the distance to subject will lessen the effects. But how many portraits have you taken lately at infinity? Probably zero, right? ......You are correct. It's the same number of portraits that I've taken with a 28mm lens placed too close to the subject. None........... I choose the proper lens for the job.HahWell, in fairness, many people take great portraits with the Q/Q2 – just gotta be aware of not putting the subject's forehead in the outer part of the frame, especially on the long side (caveat being people with short foreheads – it can be flattering for some face types to use the distortion to an advantage).Portraits with the Leica Q2More Portraits with the Leica Q2

True Indeed.

My vote goes to a Tri-Elmar MATE version of the Q...

Kiwisnap wrote:My vote goes to a Tri-Elmar MATE version of the Q...Sir,An excellent choice... covers all the bases ... that's for sure!Waiting. ... really hopingDavid

Modlin wrote:I have that screen on 6dII...don't recall flipping it even once..In all the years I have had my Nikons, I have used it only for two events, but for others, I can see usable functionalities.David

Not possible. Read my post about why the Q3 will have a 28mm lens again.