First of all, 10 years is the upper limit of useablity for a digital camera anyway. Thus, if I get the Q, I really dont expect to get more than 10 years out of it. Because unlike film cameras, digital cameras simply dont last. In 10 years, the electronics will have been worn down and might stop function any time, the memory cards for the camera wont be available anymore, neither will be new chargers or batteries. Thats just how digital cameras are. No matter if they are from Leica or somebody else. There is no way around this - this is the consequence of having electronics - electronics simply age.
Second, well, predictions are hard, especially about the future. However, if we look at the current development - the advancements in respect to IQ are getting smaller and smaller. The Sony A7s was kind of a game changer recently with extreme High ISO performance (useable high ISO up to about 50k to 100k), as was the Nikon D810 with native ISO 64, but overall the last really noticeable jump in plain technology was between Nikon D90 and D7000, because of the improved dynamic range. Ever since we're mostly getting really only small increments, and fine tuning. Which is what both A7s and D810 are, and probably the new Sony A7rII with a backlit sensor as well. I also dont expect that much from organic sensors, anyway - Fuji keeps delaying this introduction again and again, so maybe we're in for a disappointment in that area, in respect to what additional performance we will actually get from it. What I really hope for, though, is that somebody starts using dichrotic mirrors on the sensor itself, on every pixel, at some point in the future - that would then give us least twice the sensitivity than before, the effective sensor size would EXPLODE (since thanks to mirrors the photo diodes can now grow in the 3rd dimension) though I'm not sure if my thinking there is correct (I suspect this allows to make sensors with really low ISOs, thus allowing to collect a lot of light and get even better signal to noise ratios), and we'll get the resolution of Foveon X3 sensors (full 3 color channels in every pixel) without the disadvantages (bad high ISO performance due to tons of color noise). Thats about the last really substantial jump in sensor technology, though, because otherwise we're only limited to how efficient our sensors are (and how large we can make them, and how low ISOs we can support, in order to get better signal to noise).
Third, yes the technology of the Q sensor isnt top notch. Neither are Canons, and people still make good pictures with that one. Nobody can compete with Sony sensors. They have all the great technology and have it patented. The sensor of the Q, though, is still "good enough" (as are Canons) for stunning results. Plus the sensor of course has ONE advantage - it allows to construct a 28mm lens without making it a retrofocus (Zeiss calls those "Distragon") design, thus the lens can be small (and of higher quality, thanks to the decreased needed complexity).
Otherwise the Q seems to have no important weakness, for example the lens is great for the purpose I want the Q (social photography, for which I for example dont need that urgently any border sharpness, but f1.7 is great to have), and the autofocus, ergonomics and apparently also haptics all seem to be great, too.
Leica's price is ridiculous in our age of rapid digital camera evolution/deprecation.
How so ? The Sony RX1 costs about (?) 3k (3.5k at release, anyway), and the quite inferior (compared to the Q) EVF is quite expensive, too. And the RX1 camera is butt ugly, while the Q is quite beautiful. And the RX1 offers slightly less maximum aperture, "only" f2 instead of f1.7. And its slower, operationwise. Also the ergonomics of the Q seem to be superior, though I dont like the "Apple" approach (aka important fine tuning options are missing).
I repeat: Leica can compete with a huge mass producer like Sony ! Yes, you get a bit more expensive, but you get enough extra that it can compensate for that. Thats very impressive.
So why complain NOW ? The Q is simply unbelievably cheap for what it does and considering its coming from a relatively small company.
Did you not see Ming Thein's little blurb? This is not an expensive camera--it's a cheap Leica. ;-)
I would have guessed a higher price, too. Considering a new M costs what ? 7k ?
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36392-ee7dc51c9be334b9979003f6316db12e.jpg?1734168771)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32721-63e870bb6055043e46744e5ac505d9bf.jpg?1734162372)
