Full credit to Jeremy Gray at PetaPixel for this one: Leica Sells ‘Twice as Much or Even More’ Q Cameras Than M Rangefinders. Gray reports on comments made by Andrea Pacella, Leica’s VP of global marketing, at the Leica SL3-P launch event in Wetzlar. Pacella revealed that the Q series now outsells the entire M rangefinder system by a factor of two or more, and that Leica deliberately caps production to protect the premium price point rather than chasing volume. He also disclosed the split within the Q3 family: roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of buyers choose the standard 28mm Q3 over the 43mm variant.
My take
I’ve been banging on about the supremacy of the Q range (in sales terms) for a long time now. It was an instant hit when the original Q arrived in 2015, and Leica has had the discipline to develop the concept without straying from the blueprint. That’s precisely the right call — and it stands in sharp contrast to the company’s flip-flopping on APS-C over the same period. There’s a real argument that the Leica T (2014), a contemporary of the original Q, would still be with us today if Leica had made smarter decisions with that line instead of abandoning it.
The Q3 is the aspirational fixed-lens compact. On price alone, it would probably outsell the Fujifilm X100VI several times over if it were pitched anywhere near that price point — but that’s wishful thinking, nothing more. Leica is on the right course with the Q, and I hope the lesson they take from this is Fuji’s approach to Kaizen: refine and develop, don’t reinvent.
The feature image above, Riding High, is taken with the Q3 43 on the day it was released. © Mike Evans
Join Macfilos on our ten-year journey with the Leica Q series
Make a donation to help with our running costs
Did you know that Macfilos is run by five photography enthusiasts based in the UK, USA and Europe? We cover all the substantial costs of running the site, and we do not carry advertising because it spoils readers’ enjoyment. Any amount, however small, will be appreciated, and we will write to acknowledge your generosity.
Comments: Please add a comment to this article. Our comments section is a thriving community and everyone is treated with respect. In addition, please identify yourself (and add an email address, which will not be published, if you would like to see answers to your posting). Our system will automatically delete any “anonymous” posts on the basis that they are likely to be spam.
I think we all need to thank Sony for their efforts that produced the Leica Q series cameras?
Why thank Sony some may ask. Simple. Sony produced the RX1 and RX1R cameras which showed what a compact digital camera could be. Fortunately for us, these cameras needed some refinement that Sony did not choose to make in a timely manner. Which provided Leica with the opportunity to produce the Q which did address the refinements people wanted.
If Sony had updated the RX bodies faster and possibly added another lens option to the series, the story of the Q series could be quite different.
PaulB
This is a spot-on assessment, Paul. I owned the original RX1 and loved it (apart from the need to an external viewfinder). Leica copied all that, refined the genre and produced the Q.
It’s an interesting theory that Leica drew inspiration from the Sony RX1 when creating the Q series; the Sony RX1 launched in 2012, and the Leica Q followed three years later—so the timeline certainly fits. I can’t say for sure, so I won’t argue against it. My own assumption is that, following the takeover by the Kaufmann family in 2004/2005, Leica first consolidated its position before gradually moving in the right direction. The SL was also released in 2015; while it wasn’t a great camera in many respects, it featured one of the best—perhaps even the best—viewfinder of any mirrorless system camera. At that time, neither Canon nor Nikon had mirrorless systems. Then came the corresponding lenses for the L-Mount. The SL and Q share many parallels and components, leading me to the bold theory that Leica spent a considerable amount of time developing these mirrorless cameras and the necessary lenses. Consequently, I believe the Q represents one of Leica’s best ideas—perhaps even the best idea—of the last 11 years.
You are right. Certainly the best idea.
Olaf
I agree. Whether the impulse for Q was inspiration or fear, the decision to make it was a good one.
Concerning the original SL, I think we will agree that Leica pushed the envelope for what a mirrorless camera could be. Though, Leica did not push when it came to the sensor. For me to make the change from an M body to the SL, the sensor really needed to be 36MP. As 24MP did not provide the zoomed experience the view finder was capable of delivering.
PaulB
Thank you for this post.
The information regarding the economic importance of the Q-series for Leica comes as no surprise; for one thing, one can see the breakdown of the company’s revenue in published financial statements, and for another, it was already mentioned at the 2025 Leica Experience Days in Wetzlar that the Q and SL models account for 60% of camera sales revenue.
Facts like these reassure me; after all, the company once nearly slid into insolvency relying on the M-series. The parallel to Porsche and the 911 is truly remarkable, and Leica is positioned astonishingly well for a relatively small camera manufacturer: analog and digital cameras, manual and autofocus capabilities, high-quality, compact lenses that retain their value and can be used across multiple systems, premium compact cameras and interchangeable-lens systems, the continued evolution of the iconic M-series as a digital rangefinder, an L-Mount ecosystem featuring diverse, high-quality hardware from other manufacturers, “special editions” for monochrome photography, a dedicated mobile phone for photography enthusiasts, a photo app for mobile users, projectors, lifestyle products—there is a wide range of offerings for many photography enthusiasts. Add to this a distribution structure independent of third-party retailers—featuring their own stores—and the development and production of a proprietary processor on the horizon; to me, this sounds like a smart business strategy.
[…] Leggi l’articolo completo → macfilos.com […]
My Leica CL is also my ‘poor man’s Leica Q’ – when fitted with the ‘somewhat under-rated’ TL 18mm lens (27mm FF equivalent). The CL does not have the ‘megapixels’ of a Q2 – but for my purposes is a far more versatile and often ‘pocketable’ camera. I do not need 47.3 or 63.3 megapixels – because the CL accepts near APO quality ‘vintage’ M lenses (e.g. 1960s M 135/4 Tele-Elmar). And even a ‘crop’ from a CL / TL 18mm image, will provide an excellent A3 size print. Furthermore, I’m put off from considering a Q series because of documented ‘dust on sensor’, ‘dust in lens’, ‘moisture in lens’ and ‘faulty/worn lens focusing ribbon’ issues. Apparently if a Q2 / Q3 lens has these issues, the warranty ‘repair’ involves fitting a complete new lens – which is fine if the camera is still within warranty – but not so good if it’s ‘out of warranty’. Furthermore, I’m wondering about the Q series 28mm Summilux lens’ leaf shutter’s “longevity”? My pockets are ‘not deep’ and I have to consider a camera’s / lens’, potential “longevities”. And let’s face it, regardless of ‘factory sealing’, any “fixed lens digital camera” will at some stage suffer from “dust ingress” – and resultant image degradation. Thus still very happy with my now relatively ‘old’ SL 601 and its quality imaging – that’s another story but suffice to mention much prefer being able to clean the sensor glass myself – which is not possible with a ‘fixed lens compact’.
I had a dust blob on the sensor of my D-Lux 8. It was still (just) within warranty and was repaired free. However, a couple of months later and this could have cost over £200, I believe. It’s always a risk and, in that, you are probably right to be cautious.
For me, with a non-working zoom on my D-Lux Typ 109, the question I ask myself is not ‘how much will this cost me’, but ‘how often will this need to be repaired’
In contrast, my Summicron 50 v3 needs a CLA. I likely will only need that done in 10 to 20 years. Others on this board can better estimate that, of course. Nor does this “brick” the camera.
Kathy, The D Lux 109’s ‘sticky / non-functioning zoom lever’ is a common anomaly. I remedied a colleague’s camera by spraying a ‘tiny amount’ of KONTAKT (very good quality contact cleaner) into the tiny gap between the lever and the top plate. And it’s also possible to slide a ‘thin sliver’ of paper into the tiny gap too – and work it back and forth to ‘clean’ out any contaminant. At your own risk but might avoid an expensive repair.
“I remedied a colleague’s camera by spraying a ‘tiny amount’ of KONTAKT (very good quality contact cleaner) into the tiny gap between the lever and the top plate. And it’s also possible to slide a ‘thin sliver’ of paper into the tiny gap too – and work it back and forth to ‘clean’ out any contaminant.”
Wonderful! I never thought of that area … I think I’ve tried everything else but that.
And the D-Lux is such a fun little camera to use.
First time that I am aware of that Leica confirms what most people had been suspecting for the better part of a decade, i.e. that the Leica Q outsells the Leica M. I have to assume that we are talking bodies only here though. There recently was a rumor that the Leica Q accounted for 41% of the revenue in 2025 and the Leica M for 39% which would mean that lens sales included the Leica M is pretty much on par with the Leica Q. According to the same rumor the Leica SL accounted for less than 10% of the revenue, which in my opinion will not change till they make the system significantly smaller and lighter.
My first digital camera, was a Panasonic DMC LX3, which I really liked, but I still lusted over owning a Leica. I did not have the budget for a new digital example, so I bought an M2 with a DR Summicron from Ivor Cooper at Red Dot Camera.
Soon after I bought it though, I noticed that there were strange splodges in the light areas of a print, like the sky for instance. I was not happy, I had it CLA’d and when it came back, it was different but worse.
I can’t remember the order now, but I went through a series of Leica cameras, all of which had some sort of niggle that kept me dissatisfied in some way.
Eventually I bought the CL with 18-55 zoom lens, and to this day it remains one of my favourite cameras. GAS is a powerful urge though, and I wanted a ‘proper’ Leica. I tried a couple of M’s, and there was always something that I did not like.
I spied a Hasselblad SWC in Mr. Cad and wanted one of those, having read the glowing reports in Ken Rockwell’s esteemed publication, and got rid of most of the other cameras that I had collected. This became another favourite but I remember being very tired of carrying the heavy Hasselblad and lusted after a Leica again. So the whole buying and selling thing began again, some cameras had no viewfinder, some were too fat, there was always a niggle.
Eventually I purchased the Q2, I have quite a few other cameras that I like though, one being the replacement Panasonic DMC LX5 that I found for £80, after I gave the previous Panny to my daughter.
I go through phases of GAS and a few weeks back I decided the Q2 had to go, I was going to get a used CL again…
I stripped off the paraphernalia that had attached itself to the Q2, the JJC thumb grip, the Chinese base with attached front grip, and got ready to trade it for a CL, this time with a prime lens.
After all, I had my newly acquired Leica iiig, but after I had removed the JJC thumb grip, I realized that it had been concealing the little button that gives the Q2 the zoom feature, the similar Leica part has a slave button that fits over the top of the the one on the body, making it clearly visible, and useful. I have ordered one of those and I mean to keep the Q2.
I realize that the above proceedings make me look like a bit of a divvy, I do have the excuse of brain damage on my side, however the Q2 remains my favourite Leica of all time, and my wife has been instructed to make sure that I never change it in my whimsical way.
In the end, the big picture is all about composition and I am told that I can do that pretty well, regardless of the make or model of camera that I am carrying.
Finally, there is a little mantra I keep in my head that even though I regularly make poor camera decisions is that it is cheaper than golf, both of which attract the Churchill criticism that the pursuits are “a good walk, ruined.”
I will stick to photography and probably continue to make daft choices regarding hardware. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote…
“And so it goes”.
I will not mention the Fuji’s, Rollei’s, really cheap CampSnaps and Vivitiars etc, that adorn my shelves, (even though I just did) and content myself with mainly the Q2 and the iiig, the first for its all round brilliance, and the latter because it fulfills the Leica as jewelry idea, talk about the ‘mechanically perfect MP, that is not correct, that is the crown held by the Leica iiig.
Really interesting sales data on the Q series! The compact fixed-lens format clearly resonates with photographers who want quality without the bulk. The Q series has definitely carved out its own market segment alongside the traditional M line.
I would question only that “Leica deliberately caps production to protect the premium price point rather than chasing volume.” As I write this, the Q3, Q3 43, Q3 Monochrom, and Q3 Metal Gray are “In Stock” and therefore readily available at B&H. That does not seem particularly production capped (vis-à-vis demand, and therefore pricing) to me.
I had a Q2 and traded up to the Q3 43 (still am an M shooter also).
It is an unbeatable street camera, superb lens, very accurate AF and AE. I agree with William it does not quite have the character as some M lenses but it’s design is brilliant in many ways. With the excellent sensor and lens combination, I can easily crop down to a 150mm equivalent and get great results.
Our friend Andrea Pacella shows a lot of candour in this interview. This is his style and he is honest about Leica’s marketing strategies. I have a Q3 43 which I bought partially because Jono Slack told me the lens was better than my favourite 50mm Summilux. I was also having eye problems at the time I made the purchase, which a change of glasses has since addressed. The 43mm is a very good lens, but maybe not with the same character as the 50 Summilux. Likewise with the camera. It is an expensive tool but does not have the unique character and characteristics of the manual focus Leicas which distinguish the brand. I possibly would have preferred a Q with a 35mm lens, but you can’t have everything and that would have been too close to 28mm anyway.
The sales figures don’t surprise me. Did I mention that Andrea Pacella is very good at his job?
William
I have more than my fair share of cameras across the years, but my Q3 is the one that I reach for when I really want to enjoy my photography.