Future Leica Owner: Comparing a few aspects to the TL

[Wednesday Campanella]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,

 

I've been intent on learning photography for some time, and I'm now closer to making that first step—the purchase—than ever before.  The Q and TL are the two cameras, after some serious and regular flirtations with the Sony RX1, I believe would be most suited to my future photographic interests.  Considering the substantial cost of both, I'd love some knowledge from some Leica owners.  I've already spent hours perusing this forum—and finding this a quite friendly and helpful community—to understand a variety of issues, but some questions remain.

 

1) I will want to spend most time shooting in low light.  I understand that sensor size, focal length and aperture all affect low light abilities; however, since the Q and TL use different sensor sizes, focal lengths and apertures, I don't know how, if it's possible, to make a comparison, educated or approximate.

Should the Q or a TL with the 35mm F1.4 lens provide better low light ability?

2) Should the Q or a TL with the 35mm F1.4 lens offer shallower depth of field?

3) I believe people will be one of my primary subjects and so I've read much about the inappropriateness of a 28mm for faces.  How far away from faces do I need to be to avoid visible facial distortion?

4) The Q LCD is described as laggy in some reviews, and the TL as much more responsive than the very laggy T.  Does the Q or TL have a more responsive touch screen?  

5) Does the Q or TL have a better quality LCD? (Besides the superior size of the TL's LCD, what about other characteristics such as brightness, contrast, etc.)

 

 

Thank you for any guidance and knowledge!

[matlep]

I would say the Q is not the optimal choice as a first camera if you are new to photography. The 28mm focal length is hard to master. In that case the TL might be an better option.

But I would say the Q is my personal favourite camera so far. And I have used quite a lot of them 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ropo54]

Hi everyone,

 

I've been intent on learning photography for some time, and I'm now closer to making that first step—the purchase—than ever before.  The Q and TL are the two cameras, after some serious and regular flirtations with the Sony RX1, I believe would be most suited to my future photographic interests.  Considering the substantial cost of both, I'd love some knowledge from some Leica owners.  I've already spent hours perusing this forum—and finding this a quite friendly and helpful community—to understand a variety of issues, but some questions remain.

 

1) I will want to spend most time shooting in low light.  I understand that sensor size, focal length and aperture all affect low light abilities; however, since the Q and TL use different sensor sizes, focal lengths and apertures, I don't know how, if it's possible, to make a comparison, educated or approximate.

Should the Q or a TL with the 35mm F1.4 lens provide better low light ability?

2) Should the Q or a TL with the 35mm F1.4 lens offer shallower depth of field?

3) I believe people will be one of my primary subjects and so I've read much about the inappropriateness of a 28mm for faces.  How far away from faces do I need to be to avoid visible facial distortion?

4) The Q LCD is described as laggy in some reviews, and the TL as much more responsive than the very laggy T.  Does the Q or TL have a more responsive touch screen?  

5) Does the Q or TL have a better quality LCD? (Besides the superior size of the TL's LCD, what about other characteristics such as brightness, contrast, etc.)

 

 

Thank you for any guidance and knowledge!

 

 

I would certainly go with the Q.

 

The user interface is superb on the Q, whereas the touch screen takes some time getting used to;

 

For lowlight, the Q will do better than the T with the 35 1.4. The Q handles high ISO much better than does the T;

 

Image quality on the Q is superb. While the T and the lenses are terrific, nonetheless, the Q - along with being full frame - takes it to another level;

 

One can avoid image distortion for portraits by simply not having faces too far to the width of the screen. One trick that can be used for portraits: use the 35mm or 50mm optional frame lines on the Q as a guide and shoot in JPEG and DNG setting. When you open the file in DNG format  your faces should be nicely far enough away from the corners and there should be no concerns.

 

The Q autofocus is very FAST. The T does lag. If you want to capture any kind of action, the Q is much better. 

 

The T's 35 1.4 is a terrific lens. It is bulky and heavy, however. It will do quite nicely in low light, but, again, not as fast as the Q.

 

I have had both systems and they are each wonderful. The T provides one with more versatility with the optional lenses, which are all superb. But, the Q being full frame and with an excellent lens is an incredible camera.

 

(One option I tried with the T was to add a Zeiss planar 50mm f2 lens and shoot with manual focus. The Zeiss lens, like the M primes which can be used on the T, are also quite compact. So, if you don't mind manual focus, it is a great option if you want to get away from the sheer size of the 35 TL lens. And, the images were terrific. You cannot do that with the Q's fixed lens!).

 

Rob

[viramati]

For me the Q is just the best 'street' camera ever but if your looking to do portraits where the persons face fill the frame it won't be ideal but for 'environmental portraits' where you want to show people in their surroundings it's great. personally I carry the Q along with the fuji XT-2 with either the 35/1.4 or 56/1.2 and that really covers pretty much anything

[earleygallery]

I'm not sure either option is a good idea for a complete beginner.

 

Until you start getting into photography you don't know what style you'll adopt, what subjects you prefer etc.

 

The Q is great but rather a niche camera, ideal if you want a 28mn lens of course.

 

The T would be a better beginners camera but there is a limited lens choice and IMHO there are far better options for far less money. Perhaps money is no object to you, in which case buy the SL and its two zooms.

 

If you want to start learning and must have a Leica the D Lux would be my recommendation - progress to a system camera when you've found out what you prefer photographically.

[Iduna]

If you are a beginner the lens of fl28 mm may be the only factor which can be a problem. But on the other hand the sensor is superb, image quality in lowlight is superb. The 28 fl is offering a bigger versatility than one might think at the first sight. You can approach very near a subject, you have  a nice macro function. You can shoot in a crop modus of 35 mm and 50 mm. But you will very soon learn to see directly. The versatility by cropping is very good.

Shooting landscape is ideal, architecture, street and within limits also portrait. Night photography function very well even without tripod you'll get nice images. Longtime exposures are possible. Remote control by smartphone alos works vi WiFi and not to forget even video can be done very nicely.

I never use an APSC sensor. If I want to exploit the crop factor I use a MFT sensor camera.

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Consider also the choice of viewfinder. Here the Q is the runaway winner. It offers an outstanding framing experience.

[Wednesday Campanella]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to share all this great info!

 

Several of you have stated that the Q is better for low light.  Besides Rob who says he's had both and so able to directly compare, how are you able to figure out which camera is better in low light?  Is there a formula or is it simply an educated estimation based on the specs?  I would understand arriving at an educated guess if one were comparing cameras of the same sensor size.

 

While Iduna and Rob said I can use the 35/50mm crop modes to avoid distortion, if I choose to do portraiture where the face takes up most of the frame (I don't imagine I'll do this much), is it possible to avoid visible distortion, without the crop feature, with sufficient space from the subject?  Or is 28mm so sufficiently wide that to distance myself at the minimum threshold to avoid distortion the face is no long taking up most of the frame?

[ropo54]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to share all this great info!

 

Several of you have stated that the Q is better for low light.  Besides Rob who says he's had both and so able to directly compare, how are you able to figure out which camera is better in low light?  Is there a formula or is it simply an educated estimation based on the specs?  I would understand arriving at an educated guess if one were comparing cameras of the same sensor size.

 

While Iduna and Rob said I can use the 35/50mm crop modes to avoid distortion, if I choose to do portraiture where the face takes up most of the frame (I don't imagine I'll do this much), is it possible to avoid visible distortion, without the crop feature, with sufficient space from the subject?  Or is 28mm so sufficiently wide that to distance myself at the minimum threshold to avoid distortion the face is no long taking up most of the frame?

 

 

Yes,  you'll be able to do portraits quite capably and beautifully! Check out some earlier threads on the Q and portraits. The clarity and bokeh are beautiful. With full frame you also have a greater ability to crop.  I would not be overly concerned as the Q will shine.

 

Re: use in low light. The Q is full frame so the sensor can take in more available light making its natural ability to handle low light much better. Also, the lens with an aperture capability of 1.7 also allows for shooting in low light. Finally, the ISO capability is far superior.  Check out the thread on the Q forum regarding iso 50,000!  Essentially, one could shoot in pitch black and have a very viewable image (albeit with more graininess than one would ever want to have). The T cannot do that.

 

As to 28mm field of view: well, that is what most cell phones provide. So, if you are comfortable with the field of view from your cell phone then you should be okay with a 28 mm lens. I kind of like it because it gives one more of an option to capture a scene or a cityscape as the case may be. Of course, with the T one has the option to buy an 11-23 zoom (equivalent to 17-35mm on full frame). 

 

To reiterate: the Q is a far superior camera. The T, however, is quite capable of producing stunning images and affords the option of different lenses. If you want to go light and have incredible images, go with the Q.  That bokeh, clarity and depth of field makes it special.

 

A portrait below. (Cropped)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Wednesday Campanella]

Re: use in low light. The Q is full frame so the sensor can take in more available light making its natural ability to handle low light much better.

 

 

Is it ever possible for a full frame camera to be eclipsed in low light potential by an APS-C?  The origin of my question on low light potential was that I wasn't sure if the superior sensor size of the Q gives is a decisive win since the TL lens is slightly faster (1.4 vs 1.7).  Is the implication here that sensor size is the most important factor in determining low light ability?

 

Similarly, could someone speak to how to determine which camera has shallower depth of field, and how that is determined?

 

Thank you for the sharing the portrait as well.  I certainly see no issue with distortion.

[ropo54]

There would be distortion in a portrait shot if the images snapped were on the outer part of the frame. Accordingly, being aware of that allows one to frame the picture so as to avoid that.

 

Sensor size - full frame - has more pixels than a cropped sensor, so can gather more light. 

 

The difference between 1.4 and 1.7 is relatively minor in terms of shallower depth of field, but (and someone correct if I am wrong here) a 1.4 aperture on the T's cropped sensor is the equivalent of a 2.1 aperture on a full frame sensor.  

 

Other cameras you might consider before delving into the Q would be the X2 or X typ 113. They are cropped sensor, the X2 has slow AF, but they have a very similar menu system to the Q's. Both have fixed 35mm lenses and both render lovely images. If $ is of any concern in  your decision, both of these are substantially less expensive than the Q, and easier to navigate than the T. You can certainly seem some of the fantastic images they produce on the sister forum here. 

 

Rob

Edited February 5, 2017 by ropo54

[Wednesday Campanella]

The difference between 1.4 and 1.7 is relatively minor in terms of shallower depth of field, but (and someone correct if I am wrong here) a 1.4 aperture on the T's cropped sensor is the equivalent of a 2.1 aperture on a full frame sensor.  

 

That's really great info to have in mind—I love having that comparative context.  Is there a formula for determining that relationship/equivalency?

 

Thank you.

[Leica Guy]

Yes, you'll be able to do portraits quite capably and beautifully! Check out some earlier threads on the Q and portraits. The clarity and bokeh are beautiful. With full frame you also have a greater ability to crop. I would not be overly concerned as the Q will shine.

 

Re: use in low light. The Q is full frame so the sensor can take in more available light making its natural ability to handle low light much better. Also, the lens with an aperture capability of 1.7 also allows for shooting in low light. Finally, the ISO capability is far superior. Check out the thread on the Q forum regarding iso 50,000! Essentially, one could shoot in pitch black and have a very viewable image (albeit with more graininess than one would ever want to have). The T cannot do that.

 

As to 28mm field of view: well, that is what most cell phones provide. So, if you are comfortable with the field of view from your cell phone then you should be okay with a 28 mm lens. I kind of like it because it gives one more of an option to capture a scene or a cityscape as the case may be. Of course, with the T one has the option to buy an 11-23 zoom (equivalent to 17-35mm on full frame).

 

To reiterate: the Q is a far superior camera. The T, however, is quite capable of producing stunning images and affords the option of different lenses. If you want to go light and have incredible images, go with the Q. That bokeh, clarity and depth of field makes it special.

 

A portrait below. (Cropped)

I concur with your analysis. The Q is a superb camera and certainly capable of taking excellent portrait kinds of photos. The one of you and your daughter is a great example. Beautiful!

[ropo54]

I concur with your analysis. The Q is a superb camera and certainly capable of taking excellent portrait kinds of photos. The one of you and your daughter is a great example. Beautiful!

 

That is my son and my granddaughter!

And, thank you for that nice compliment!

Rob

Edited February 5, 2017 by ropo54

[Belle123]

Will chime in since have both cameras. Slightly different viewpoint but don't disagree with responses so far. Love the Q but that is after having over 25 years experience and lots of camera systems and lenses, and I have other camera systems beyond that now. If were me and I was wanting to learn first time, the Q is pretty powerful but you are stuck with one lens and experimenting with multiple lenses is part of the learning process before you know what you like. The T offers that ability to explore a number of lenses, not just TL lenses. So, there are my two cents worth. I would recommend a TL or T, and lens converter, and a manual lens. Shoot manually. You will learn more that way. But if you go with a Q, can't go wrong.

Edited February 5, 2017 by billinghambaglady

[Mr.Q]

Is it ever possible for a full frame camera to be eclipsed in low light potential by an APS-C? The origin of my question on low light potential was that I wasn't sure if the superior sensor size of the Q gives is a decisive win since the TL lens is slightly faster (1.4 vs 1.7). Is the implication here that sensor size is the most important factor in determining low light ability?

 

Similarly, could someone speak to how to determine which camera has shallower depth of field, and how that is determined?

 

Thank you for the sharing the portrait as well. I certainly see no issue with distortion.

Yes, it is possible for a APS-C sensor to eclipse a FF sensor in high ISO capability. In the case of the Leica TL and Q, the short answer is no. The Q's sensor will provide 1 - 1.5 stops of cleaner (less noise) high ISO files.

 

And no one has mentioned yet, but the Q has OIS (optical image stabilization) which will be beneficial for static subjects.

 

The TL + 35/1.4 will provide a shallower DOF. A 35mm f1.4 APS-C lens is equivalent to a 52.5mm f2.1 in terms of fullframe DOF. The DOF of a 28mm f1.7 fullframe lens at 52.5mm would roughly be f3.2.

[ramarren]

If I were setting out to learn photography, I would not buy a camera without interchangeable lenses. On this choice of two cameras, I'd buy the TL with the 35mm lens and the EVF. No question. 

 

Knowing photography, I might prefer the Q to the TL as my "carry all the time and shoot anything" choice. 

[Leica Guy]

That is my son and my granddaughter!

And, thank you for that nice compliment!

Rob

The resemblance is striking. :-)

[Wednesday Campanella]

The Q's sensor will provide 1 - 1.5 stops of cleaner (less noise) high ISO files.

 

 

The TL + 35/1.4 will provide a shallower DOF. A 35mm f1.4 APS-C lens is equivalent to a 52.5mm f2.1 in terms of fullframe DOF. The DOF of a 28mm f1.7 fullframe lens at 52.5mm would roughly be f3.2.

 

 

Thank you so much!  I was much in need of this info.

 

May I ask how you arrived at the figures for both ISO and DOF comparison?  For depth of field, I've seen some online calculators, but none of them allow for choosing F1.7.  As for making comparative ISO measurements between sensors, I've likely read about that before, but being new, inundated with all this new information, a lot of what initially goes in also goes out—I've yet to truly synthesize it all just yet.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[earleygallery]

Thank you so much!  I was much in need of this info.

 

May I ask how you arrived at the figures for both ISO and DOF comparison?  For depth of field, I've seen some online calculators, but none of them allow for choosing F1.7.  As for making comparative ISO measurements between sensors, I've likely read about that before, but being new, inundated with all this new information, a lot of what initially goes in also goes out—I've yet to truly synthesize it all just yet.

 

Google 'equivalence' or have a read of this for starters https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalence