Leica Sales are Dominated by Q

Richard CR

Richard CR

Canon Rumors Premium
Dec 27, 2017
1,979
3,309
Canada
www.canonnews.com
#1
Phototrend.fr had an interview with Leica recently and posted their article. According to the article, sales have been dominated by the Q (no, not this one).

www.canonrumors.com

Leica Sales are Dominated by Q

Phototrend.fr had an interview with Leica recently and posted their article. According to the article, sales have been dominated by the Q (no, not this one). Leica holds a very modest market share…
www.canonrumors.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
#2
Very interesting interview!
Surprised by the "shoot JPEG"!
Despite criticism by many Leica haters, the have found and occupied their market niche, and are even expanding.
Developing the Q line was their best decision in the last decades, and a highly profitable one. A great little camera!
What I'm less convinced of, is the growing number of Sigma lenses "adapted" as SL lenses. I went Leica for the lenses, the SL misses far too many primes and zooms to compete with Canon. And Canon Zooms beat Sigma/Leicas ones easily, at least optically. Having to choose between a Canon and a Sigma/Leica zoom, I wouldn't hesitate and go Canon. But that's, I guess, the price for being small. Leica just lack the means for developing own telezooms, TS and standard zooms for the SL 3.
 
Upvote 0
#3
Del Paso said:
Very interesting interview!
Surprised by the "shoot JPEG"!
Despite criticism by many Leica haters, the have found and occupied their market niche, and are even expanding.
Developing the Q line was their best decision in the last decades, and a highly profitable one. A great little camera!
What I'm less convinced of, is the growing number of Sigma lenses "adapted" as SL lenses. I went Leica for the lenses, the SL misses far too many primes and zooms to compete with Canon. And Canon Zooms beat Sigma/Leicas ones easily, at least optically. Having to choose between a Canon and a Sigma/Leica zoom, I wouldn't hesitate and go Canon. But that's, I guess, the price for being small. Leica just lack the means for developing own telezooms, TS and standard zooms for the SL 3.
Click to expand...
But, Leica has now discovered using USB-C for charging.
 
Upvote 0
#6
john1970 said:
The advice to use JPG caught me by surprise. Personally I always use RAW for greatest bit depth.
Click to expand...
Seeing how Adobe zombifies my kids skin tones for pretty much every camera after the M6II, JPEG will get you pleasing colours and good results. And I bet that for the typical Leica scene, the auto exposure did a good enough job.
I’ll keep shooting RAW, though :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#7
john1970 said:
The advice to use JPG caught me by surprise. Personally I always use RAW for greatest bit depth.
Click to expand...
Seems strange to me...and I honestly don't understand why anyone in this day in age would promote JPEG over RAW.

You get such a broad brush to paint with with RAW....JPEG just bakes too much into the "image"...why would someone limit themselves so badly?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#8
cayenne said:
Seems strange to me...and I honestly don't understand why anyone in this day in age would promote JPEG over RAW.

You get such a broad brush to paint with with RAW....JPEG just bakes too much into the "image"...why would someone limit themselves so badly?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne
Click to expand...
As an active Leica user: RAW, nothing else!
 
Upvote 0
#9
cayenne said:
Seems strange to me...and I honestly don't understand why anyone in this day in age would promote JPEG over RAW.

You get such a broad brush to paint with with RAW....JPEG just bakes too much into the "image"...why would someone limit themselves so badly?

Just my $0.02,

cayenne
Click to expand...
I know someone who uses the jpg because he doesn't want to spend any time in an editor even for denoising
 
Upvote 0
#11
P-visie said:
Some members of “my” photoclub delete their raw files once they have processed them and they only keep the jpg…..
Click to expand...
I did that by accident for a bunch of my photos, the cleanup script I wrote didn’t handle TIFFs renamed by topaz and it deleted the matching CR3s….
That was 5 years ago and it still stings, especially with much better denoisers available, they were dawn shots of dew covered dragonflies, so ISO12800 using an 1dx3.
The added storage cost is more than worth it for me.

Having said that, I export everything as jpeg-xl and import it into apple
photos.app in order to sync to all my devices. So what I view and show is indeed a jpeg :)
 
Upvote 0
#13
EricN said:
I can understand better than never using a raw file at all, but if memory is a problem as ssd are becoming more popular hhd becomes cheaper
Click to expand...
Everyone is free to do what they want with their raw files, but to me deleting raw files after processing makes no sense. According to a post on DCW (amusing read), Gen Z who use film camera’s throw away their negatives after the scanned images are on their phones.
Maybe those people in my photo club were trendsetters ;).

See: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-doesnt-understand-the-first-thing-about-film
 
Upvote 0
#14
P-visie said:
Everyone is free to do what they want with their raw files, but to me deleting raw files after processing makes no sense. According to a post on DCW (amusing read), Gen Z who use film camera’s throw away their negatives after the scanned images are on their phones.
Maybe those people in my photo club were trendsetters ;).

See: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-doesnt-understand-the-first-thing-about-film
Click to expand...
Thank you for the article! Even Bangkok is an impressive sized city, I couldn't find any shops printing from negatives to paper. They all seem to only offer scaning the negative and print from the digital copy.
 
Upvote 0
#15
EricN said:
Thank you for the article! Even Bangkok is an impressive sized city, I couldn't find any shops printing from negatives to paper. They all seem to only offer scaning the negative and print from the digital copy.
Click to expand...
I scan my negatives.....to digitize and send them to printers...

BUT...I still keep my physical negatives....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#16
P-visie said:
Everyone is free to do what they want with their raw files, but to me deleting raw files after processing makes no sense. According to a post on DCW (amusing read), Gen Z who use film camera’s throw away their negatives after the scanned images are on their phones.
Maybe those people in my photo club were trendsetters ;).

See: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...-doesnt-understand-the-first-thing-about-film
Click to expand...
They are only doing what the majority of casual consumers did in the film days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#17
Sporgon said:
They are only doing what the majority of casual consumers did in the film days.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe folks in the past in general threw out their negatives?

My parents, friends parents and all....all have TONS of old negatives...that I am currently harvesting to digitize....

Most folks I know kept the negatives....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon R5 Mark II and Canon R6 Mark II continue to dominate Japan Sales
Replies
9
Views
631
Del Paso
D
Canon Rumors
Leica achieved the best results in their history
Replies
6
Views
719
Del Paso
D
Canon Rumors
Insta360 Ace Pro 2 specifications leak ahead of announcement
Replies
0
Views
335
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Insta360 Ace Pro 2 officially launched
Replies
0
Views
195
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Fujifilm: We’d rather run out of Inventory
Replies
4
Views
608
LSXPhotog
LSXPhotog
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu