lokihardt

After putting side cash for couple of years, I'm thinking of pulling a trigger on Leica M10/M11 this year and wonder whether it's worth the hype?
I have done numerous research on the brand and the camera itself and indicates to me the MSRP has priced in the 1) hype 2) design/aesthetics 3) Leica technology
I'm also gearing towards more affordable digital cameras, such as Lumix and Sony (little bit cheaper). I currently own Ricoh GR II and absolutely in love with this compact camera and how much power it has!
Curious of what others think!

strickerj

My grandfather was an avid Leica photographer from the late 50s until he passed away in 1995, and my dad inherited his gear.

More recently, my dad also has one of the Leica D-Lux models (basically a rebadged Lumix - they both use Leica optics and Panasonic electronics). It was good, but I'm not sure it was really worth the price premium over its Lumix counterpart.

I'm not familiar with their current rangefinders (which as you know are their flagship products), but as I understand it, the rangefinder was a more accurate way to manually focus back in the days when that mattered, and the form factor of the current M-series is largely rooted in tradition. They're still known for quality optics though - it's personal preference whether that's worth it the price premium.

sea_jeff

Just dipped my toes into the Leica waters a year ago.

One of my best friends shoots a dslr for action and Leica Ms for everything else and a few of my clients are avid M shooters so I luckily get to play with them once in a while.

I am not really a street shooter and quite honestly am not very proficient using an RF so I’ve managed to resist the urge for an M Monocrom of some sort but when Leica announced the Q2 Reporter that was too much to resist. Even the boss aka wifey liked the design. If you love the focal length of the GR the Q and Q2 are 28mm also. Not at all pocketable like the Ricoh though.

Normally I’m a Sony/Fuji shooter but the Q2 goes everywhere. Solid feel. Great lens. Image quality is very nice and a tactile pleasure to use. Rationalized it as being like buying a Summilux 24ish mm 1.7 (many feel the actual focal length of the Q lens is wider than 28) and getting a free 47mp body.

deniah

I have a Q2, which is a mirrorless fixed lens Leica, but not true interchangeable rangefinder like the M series are. It is still supposed to embody the same hyped Leica appeal of being tactile and nice to use. I feel that that's all quite overrated in the Q2.

I'm not unfamiliar with this ethos having shot fully manual with film (Pentax K1000), and like digital products (Sony RX1, Fuji X100, etc).

For general camera build and feel, the Sony feels just as solid or arguably even better.
For fun of use, the more compact layout and button design of Fuji invites playfulness. The Leica controls are flush and kinda resistive.
For speed of operation, this one is no comparison. Manual focusing will never be as fast, and the Q2's auto focusing isn't that great either. There's other inferior elements shot-to-shot lag, viewfinder blackout, etc.

Surprisingly the best thing about Leica is that it's phone connectivity and companion app is 1000x more reliable than the other brands. That's kinda antithetical to their image.

Obviously with a top grade lens and large modern sensor, it can make nice images. But so can the Sony FF with its Zeiss lens, or really any modern camera with larger than a phone-grade sensor. All in all, I'm glad I scratched that Leica itch, but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

sea_jeff

With the launch of the Q3 there seems to be a bump in the used Q2 availability. They maintain their value pretty well so you can conceivably buy one now, use it for a good long while and not incur too much of a hit if you decide to sell it.

Same lens in all Q models. Most would be hard pressed to tell the difference between images between any of the Q models online.

Hardcore Leica fans do praise the controls of the Q cameras. I like the macro mode and I the well damped feel of the focus ring and aperture ring but would rather have the dedicated shutter speed dial and ISO dial a la the X100x cameras.

That said the top control wheel that is changeable with a quick push isn't bad. I toggle between exposure comp and ISO with it pretty fluidly.

immaculate

Avid Leica photographer here - have numerous bodies ranging from pre-war IIIf to modern film bodies (MP/MA) to my latest M11. Prior to this, I shot Canon DSLRs and still shoot a Ricoh GR III having upgraded all the way from the original GR. As long as you accept that you are paying in part for the hype, I don’t think you’ll regret it. I started shooting Leica rangefinders when I was trying to “slow down” and be more in the moment in day-to-day life. Although one can zone focus a Leica rangefinder fairly quickly, it really isn’t an action camera (in my opinion) or a spray and pray camera. And I like this a lot - it forces me to think about what I want to see, what I want to portray, etc.

Optically, the lenses are exceptional. I’ve got M-mount lenses that are 50 years old that produce stunning photos on my M11. Will they be as clinically sharp as a modern APO Leica lens? Nope. But that’s part of the charm to me.

On the road so I’ll stop there, if you have other specific questions, ask away!

Including an example shot on my first digital M rangefinder - the M240. Lens is the 50mm Noctilux.

od_sf

I'm also a big Leica fan. I've owned film Ms, digital Ms, Q's, and my current camera is an SL2 (along with a Hasselblad 500 on the film side).

My portfolio is here: https://www.olivierdesmet.com/ and everything on it (except for the "Marine Layer" and "Flower Studies" projects, which are shot with Hasselblads) is Leica.

Feel free to ask any questions.

sea_jeff

Wow!!! Just had a look. Your work is absolutely fantastic.

JohnPaul

Why not rent one for a short trip. See if it works with how you travel and make pictures. Rangefinders are wildly different from the Canon and GR you're coming from. May help you seal the deal.