SHARE

Leica is back with another special-edition model. The new Leica Q2 Monochrom “Reporter” has all the guts of a standard Q2 M, but is wrapped in kevlar with an army green paint job. Oh and there’s now red dot (most photojournalists tape their camera logos anyhow). Leica has also given the “Reporter treatment” to some of its other cameras, most recently the standard Leica Q2 and the Leica M10-P.

As a refresher, the standard Q2 M sports a 47-megapixel, monochrome-only sensor and fixed, stabilized 28mm f/1.7 lens, packed into a tough-built body (that you could probably hammer a nail with).

The new Leica Q2 Monochrom Reporter
The Q2 M Reporter has an army green paint job. Leica

Who’s it for?

Related: You’ll need a goldfinger to afford the new Leica Q2 ‘007’ edition

A standard Leica Q2 Monochrom will set you back $6,195, while the special-edition model is just one hundred smackeroos more. So really, this camera is for anyone already considering a Leica Q2 M.

Of course, a $6000+ camera with a fixed 28mm lens that only shoots in B&W likely only appeals to a very small segment of the population: fairly deep-pocketed photographers who love monochrome and enjoy some combination of landscape, street, candid, and/or live music photography.

Would I actually buy one?

The new Leica Q2 Monochrom Reporter
The guts of the camera are the same as the standard Q2 M. Leica

No, I would not. That being said, if I did have $6,800 lying around (can’t forget tax)—which I don’t—I would certainly consider it. Having spent some rather enjoyable time shooting with both the original Leica Q, as well as Leica’s other Monochrom models, a Q2 Monochrom definitely appeals to me. I love photographing live music, and a B&W-only sensor, paired with a fast, wide lens sounds like a dream. Plus, the unique nature of the Reporter edition adds to the camera’s cool factor for a negligible cost increase. I also love the army green finish.

Price & availability

The Leica Q2 Monochrom Reporter is available now from Leica retailers. The price is $6,295 which is ironically, way more than most reporters I know—myself included—can afford.

MORE TO READ