The joy of fixed-lens cameras

I went out walking this morning, and I took my Leica Q2 Monochrom with me. Walking among the fields around my home in rural England is always interesting: the light changes often, the sky varies from hour to hour, and the crops in the fields show new tones as the seasons progress.

Since the Q2 is a fixed-lens camera, I didn’t need to decide which lens to take. I also own a Fujifilm X-E4, with a panoply of prime and zoom lenses, and when I shoot with that camera, choosing which lens or lenses will be ideal for the photos I plan to take can be complex. And my camera bag can end up quite heavy. With the Q2, there’s nothing additional to carry.

Read the rest of the article on Popular Photography.

3 thoughts on “The joy of fixed-lens cameras

  1. Kirk, a £5000 camera (that only shoots B&W) is a bit like spending £500 on interconnect cables for a hi-fi, if you can afford it great, but does that kind of money really give you enough of a difference in the quality of the image (or sound, in the case of a cable) make it actually worth doing?

    • The difference is much more than you can imagine. It offers a level of detail that you can’t get from a color camera. I invite you to search for some of the technical explanations you can find on the web. In addition, the lens it contains is extraordinary. The similar lens that Leica sell for interchangeable lens cameras (https://store.leica-camera.com/uk/en/summicron-m-28mm-f/2-asph.-black-anodized) costs £3,700. It’s not exactly the same, the Q2 has a wider f 1.7 aperture, which is possible, I think, because it’s built into the camera.

  2. Excellent article, Kirk. As a Leica M shooter for 30 years I can confirm everything you say.

    As a footnote on the price of the Leica, I have always found the resale value holds up well, making the net cost of ownership low or in some cases zero.

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.