Kiwisnap wrote:My vote goes to a Tri-Elmar MATE version of the Q...An f/4 Q3 would be dead on arrival.

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?.............I get a lot of my Leica equipment out of London and I'm probably looking to get a second Q2.  Which dealer are you referring to? I would like to speak with them about a used backup Q2.

It would also be manual focus only, need to have the shutter mechanism engineered into the lens, would forgo OIS, etc…And why would you when you can pick up an older M camera with a WATE lens?

Le Chef wrote:It would also be manual focus only, need to have the shutter mechanism engineered into the lens, would forgo OIS, etc…And why would you when you can pick up an older M camera with a WATE lens?If they did it (which they won't), it would be just like any other zoom lens with AF and OIS – it would be a WATE in name only. Engineering in the leaf shutter would be no more an issue that it was with the current lens.

highdesertmesa wrote:Le Chef wrote:It would also be manual focus only, need to have the shutter mechanism engineered into the lens, would forgo OIS, etc…And why would you when you can pick up an older M camera with a WATE lens?If they did it (which they won't), it would be just like any other zoom lens with AF and OIS – it would be a WATE in name only. Engineering in the leaf shutter would be no more an issue that it was with the current lens.All this impressive information from everyone is more than I imagined when I created the thread.A 28-35mm zoom would be a more realistic situation than the WATE lens, a lens I have read is very complicated and may be impossible to repair... Note: I am not an authority on Leica lenses as my experienced colleagues are ... only focal lengths.Thanks for all the excellent information.David

Kiwisnap wrote:My vote goes to a Tri-Elmar MATE version of the Q...That would be a dream camera to own.

Why not just get an M with a MATE? And that would have interchangeable lenses.

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?This is very surprising to me.I have a Leica C, type 112 that for a friend, the portraits I take of him, he tells me they are the best he has ever seen. Having said that, all I am trying to say is that I am attached to all my small cameras, and will not part with them although I will need to sell my Nikon D850 and Nikkor lenses to afford the Leica Q3 if and when it becomes my dream camera.DavidDavid

i vote for a silver version also

Le Chef wrote:Why not just get an M with a MATE? And that would have interchangeable lenses.That argument applies to any proposed version of the Q, surely? Even the current one. Get an M11 with a 28mm lens. 60MP, just crop.

This is not a “Should I get a Q2 or an M?” Thread btw…the poster was talking about wanting a MATE attached to a Q.The difference is the Q has fixed autofocus lens, OIS and a built-in leaf shutter. Neither the MATE nor the M have any of those items, so the “request” borders on the nonsensical.

Le Chef wrote:This is not a “Should I get a Q2 or an M?” Thread btw…the poster was talking about wanting a MATE attached to a Q.The difference is the Q has fixed autofocus lens, OIS and a built-in leaf shutter. Neither the MATE nor the M have any of those items, so the “request” borders on the nonsensical.Yes. A MATE, being slow, manual focus, no OIS.... would be the antithesis of the Q system which, is lightweight, fast, and autofocus. Anyone wanting something similar to this should just buy a different camera or a CL w/ zoom lens.

I‘m excited, I hope it’s released before the summer.  And the specs (including phase detect af) are enough to warrant getting it over the Q2

I recently found that Q3 design concept:https://arun.is/blog/leica-q3/IMO that idea of manual ISO dial is great. Whatcha think?

mhasman wrote:I recently found that Q3 design concept:https://arun.is/blog/leica-q3/IMO that idea of manual ISO dial is great. Whatcha think?To change the Q2's implementation of the ISO via the long-press of the EC button would imho be a HUGE mistake.The implementation is so incredibly clever, it's not funny. Why? Because you can change ISO without taking your eye off the viewfinder.You knew about this, right???Deed

mhasman wrote:I recently found that Q3 design concept:https://arun.is/blog/leica-q3/IMO that idea of manual ISO dial is great. Whatcha think?I think it's unnecessary.  That's what a custom-function button can be used for.  I use the FN button for exactly that.

Le Chef wrote:This is not a “Should I get a Q2 or an M?” Thread btw…the poster was talking about wanting a MATE attached to a Q.The difference is the Q has fixed autofocus lens, OIS and a built-in leaf shutter. Neither the MATE nor the M have any of those items, so the “request” borders on the nonsensical.I think I said a MATE version of the Q.This would be a Q as it is now, with IBIS and AF, with a new lens that has selectable MATE style focal lengths.Sorry if that was not obvious...

Leica's problem is that the Q2 is so good that the only improvements possible are fairly marginal.As someone who's owned and loved the Q2, I think there's no truly sensible reason to want a 35mm or 50mm Q3. The whole point of the Q2—the key differentiating feature—is that it uses a single lens + high resolution to cover a large range of fields of view with no lens changes necessary. Right now it's 28mm - 75mm. Perhaps with higher resolution it could be 28mm - 90mm or 135mm—basically, the limits of what's possible using the frameline-based system we know from the M cameras. A camera that offered 35mm - 135mm or 50mm - 135mm would actually be less useful.So I doubt Leica will change the focal length. I also doubt that they'll include a tilt screen. It would compromise the brick-like simplicity of the camera. If I'm not mistaken, not even the SL cameras have tilt screens, and they're "professional" models with nice video features. So I doubt a flip screen is coming to any Leica camera anytime soon.Could there be a smaller, lighter-weight version? I don't believe the lens can shrink, optically. And the Q2 isn't that heavy.There's only one real issue with the Q2, and that's low-light performance (although I think this is a bit overblown). So a Q3 might have better high-ISO performance, USB-C charging, slightly higher resolution, possibly faster AF-C, a little bit better viewfinder, and .... what else? It's hard to figure. I don't envy Leica's designers. I'm sure it will be a better camera, but is it worth waiting for when there's already an excellent Q2?I'm sure Leica will upgrade the Q2, just to keep it current, but the camera has reached a point where it's not getting "obsolete" in any meaningful sense. I think they had the same problem with the M10-R. The thing they had going for them there was the base-plate—an obvious thing to change. The Q3 seems like a tougher problem to me. Maybe they could make it waterproof or something.(Written as a huge Q2 fan who's contemplating selling my M10 to go back to the Q2....)

You would have to radically change the construction of the camera rather than evolving it. Your manual ISO dial would sit right in the space where the EVF currently sits. If you move that further to the center of the camera other components also have to move. As the Q is pretty tightly packed I’m not sure where they would go.The current arrangement with the button and dial on the top plate is the simplest way to both access and adjust ISO settings. And would require no change to the overall construction of the camera.

You will wait many, many mornings.