Answering Questions I Was Not Asked: My 2 Cents On Why Leica Sells More Q Cameras.
Subtitle: Hello. Former Q and M owner here.
Came across a recent article titled “Leica Sells ‘Twice as Much or Even More’ Q Cameras Than M Rangefinders”.
A Leica VP goes on to say, “On average, the Q series cameras sell twice as much, or even more, than the entire M system. It is a lot,”
While I consider myself brand agnostic, I believe I am in a position to offer some thoughts.
A walk down Leica memory lane.
I owned an OG Q a few years ago.
A great camera and lens that create wonderful images.
What I liked about it.
Fantastic for documenting life, reportage, and street photography.
That lens is amazing.
The sensor is amazing.
Why did I let it go?
Three things worked against the camera.
- It was largely purchased as a coping mechanism as my Father’s health declined. After he passed away, it sat somewhat as a reminder of that time.
- Its focal length is somewhat restrictive for such a high price point.
- It is a bit large for an everyday carry camera.
Personally, 2 and 3 combine to undermine the Q. Yes, a Q 43 would address number 2. But for less spend, I would prefer a small interchangeable lens mirrorless body and a small-ish prime. For example:
If I were stuck on acquiring a fixed lens solution, my personal preference would be a popular unobtanium camera.
Have used both, and here is my reasoning.
- The most obvious item. Costs much less.
- 35mm focal length equivalent is a solid compromise between 28mm and 43mm.
- Access to well integrated Fujifilm and third party tele and wide adapters that operate like native lenses.
- Built in flash.
- Built in ND filter.
- Better AF (Admittedly, AF has likely improved with the Q2 and Q3.)
- I like the non rangefinder patch optical viewfinder. A nice bridge between the Q and M user experience.
- Smaller.
And having used both, I believe the IQ to be so close as to be a wash between the two.
Fujifilm also released a medium format offering that I would put in line before the Q if I wanted to spend more on a fixed-lens premium camera.
That being said, I completely understand why someone would be very happy with the Q.
More recently, I owned an M camera body.
What I liked about it.
Fantastic for slowing down and appeasing all of one’s own artistic inclinations.
It. Is. Gorgeous.
What? That matters.
It feels fantastic in hand.
The sensor is amazing.
Why did I let it go?
Nothing wrong with it, honestly. Another camera won me over.
A better camera? No.
Better for me? Yes.
Ok. Enough about my personal preferences. Back to the task at hand.
Leica selling more Q cameras than M. My answer can be found in one of the blog posts I wrote about the Q. Kind of brief. Might disappoint you.
A whole Leica camera and lens with AF…
…for less than a similarly spec’d M lens.
There are other things I can point to, but within the bubble of Leica dome this is a cost comparison that cannot be ignored in my humble opinion.
But ultimately I still stand by my run-whatyou-brung ethos. The one common thread across all of the cameras and photos in this post is me.
The one common thread across all gear is the photographer behind the camera.
Happy capturing.
-ELW
Eric L. Woods 