Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Leica Q2

I was peripherally aware of the predecessor model, the Leica Q, but never paid it much mind. But now this thing comes out and I happened across some pictures, and holy cow. So here we go.

We can summarize this creeping horror in two pictures:



The front view recalls the classic Leica rangefinder. The top-deck steps down on the photographer's right to hold a couple of dials and stuff. The body is rounded at the ends, and covered with textured leather from the bottom plate to the top metal assembly thingy, whatever it's called. Ok, so this model is maybe the stubbiest, not to say stoutest, in a long line of gradually porkier Leicas. Maybe the front surface is featureless to the point of blandness. Maybe the lens looks absurdly out of proportion. I will stipulate all those things.

One can at least see the design notes being nodded at here, the maybe-respect for heritage. The retro notes, let us say, but updated to modern times, albeit by removing anything with a sniff of character, by botching the proportions, and replacing the traditional "natural" leather texture with something that looks like a chain link fence.

Let's flip this thing around.



No, no. Flip the Leica around, not whatever the hell that object is. What? That IS the Leica? The same Leica? This is the back of that? What insanity is this?

I showed this picture to my wife and asked for her impression. She thought a bit and said "basic" and then laughed out lout when I told her it was a $5000 camera.

It looks like someone took the sketch of where the buttons were supposed to go and built it. It's as if their AutoCAD licenses expired, so they had to design it in Microsoft Word's drawing tool. This is ridiculous. The buttons look like they came off a $40 VCR from the last days of VHS tape.

This is the same kind of Bauhuh? anti-design we see from Phase One, but in this case it's being thrown in our faces by a company whose actual entire reason for existence is to design things that hearken back to an older time. They may design some electronics and lenses and stuff, but they certainly don't have to, anyone can do that. No. Leica's entire raison d'ĂȘtre is to be a design company that successfully translates design notes from previous iconic Leica cameras into new cameras.

And then they insult us with this monstrosity.

Sure, sure, I get it. They're going for austere. They missed, and hit "basic." Austere means a few beautifully designed buttons, not a few rectangular blotches adorned with a hyper-modern Eurotrash font. They phoned the entire back side of this camera in, because they don't give a shit. They don't give a shit about making the front and back look like they're parts of the same object, they don't give a shit about making the back look good. They just don't care, because they know that the red dot on the front is the only thing that matters.

Don't even get me started on why the jammed a 28mm lens on the thing.

15 comments:

  1. Once in a while you nail it. Then there are posts like this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... where I nail it with twice the velocity and EIGHT TIMES the momentum. That's what you were gonna say, right? I hate when I hit "Publish" by accident before I finish a

      Delete
    2. You nailed it with a nail gun. Heck, you nailed it with a nail parlour. 9 Inch Nails got nuthin' on you. I'm won't even bring Marx into this. Hoo-rah, Marines.

      Delete
  2. More evidence, I think, that no-one knows what a "modern" camera looks like, probably because a camera is no longer a modern thing. See: "modern" fireplaces.

    As to a fixed 28mm lens: last year I acquired a (used) Fuji X-70, regretting it had the APS-C equivalent of a 28mm lens -- far too wide, for me! -- but it was a bargain and such a beautiful little thing, exquisitely made, with not a hint of modern fireplace about it... And now I simply love it, and the pictures it makes, and somehow that angle of view has come to seem perfectly normal. I think lots of people feel the same about the Ricoh GR, which I used to think was strange, but now understand completely.

    But look at us, talking gear like *proper* photo-bloggers! Whatever next?

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the notion that a Camera isn't a Modern Thing at all! I think the Qs would be improved by making the back and front look vaguely related, regardless of whether the result looked like a Camera or a Platypus.

      Delete
    2. It's hard to care at all about a $5000 camera, when better-than-good-enough can be had for 5% or less of that. I mean, just look at the price of used Fuji X-E1 and X-Pro bodies now...

      They should sell those red dots for people to stick on better cameras. Hmm...

      Mike

      Delete
  3. Come on Amolitroll. : )

    I like it, but no way will I buy it. I read enough reports to know it works very well, and the lens is excellent, and the viewfinder also great. A harsh review by internet images is definitely a troll post. Not that I care so much, but I could write a post like this for every camera I own, including my little GR2. I could write a review of your blog like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Define "troll post" please.

      I'm sure it works just fine, that's not my point.

      Delete
  4. There's this camera category: gentleman's travel camera. They're always expensive and intentionally exquisite. Probably take good pictures too.
    That textured "chain link fence" material on the front is what throws me -- hadn't seen that before. What on earth is it supposed to be? Anti-slip grip?
    I rather like the back and the rectangular buttons. "Modern" is the word alright -- which is kind of retro now. Reminds me of some old fuddy-duddy like Jonathan Ive.
    Why not replace the fake whatever on the front with the smooth black surface of the back, like the little Sony RX100s that some people find slippery so Sony sells a $12 stick-on bump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup.

      You can argue with me on whether the back is "austere" or "cheesy" because that's a kind of fine line, but there's no getting away from the weird "retro in front, noveau-Bauhaus in back" camera-mullet they have going on here, and that's just not right.

      I don't think you're ever gonna persuade me that the proportions are any good on this thing either. It looks too much like a pack of smokes.

      Delete
  5. Looks like muh film camera. Fap Fap.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Remember kids, there was a camera called the Argus C3.

    Just to put a floor under this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't understand all your negative critique on the design look of that Leica. Come on, why is this so important; to be so mad and upset about this silly thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not?

      I don't understand the knee-jerk "Why do you have to be so negative?" response when someone says something negative. Why do we always need to be positive?

      I cannot help but suspect that it is a sly way of trying to persuade me to stop saying things you disagree with.

      No.

      Delete
    2. "why is this so important; to be so mad and upset about this silly thing"

      Because blog? Stay with the tour.

      Delete