Search the Community

The Q2 DNG file is around 80++ MB but exporting as JPEG after processing in LR, I noticed that the JPEG file size becomes relatively small. For experimental purpose, I intentionally set the LR export criteria as follow :- 1) JPEG image quality to 100 2) Resize to fit as 100 Megapixels + 300 ppi The JPEG export file size never exceeds more than 25 MB. It is around 18 MB to 23 MB. Exporting as DNG file with either 1) embed fast load data or 2) embed original RAW file resulted in file size of about 38 MB only. Is the JPEG and DNG exporting file size normal ? Thank you

Mit der Q2 bin ich wirklich glücklich. Ich bin eher der "Weitwinkler" und nutze auch die große Blendenöffnung, um ein gewisses Freistellungspotential zu haben. Auch die Crop- Möglichkeit der 47 Mpx ist natürlich gut nutzbar. ABER: Gerade das Croppen verführt (mich zumindest) gelegentlich dazu, nicht mehr so sorgfältig ein Bild zu komponieren. Irgendetwas Gescheites wird sich doch aus dem Foto schon herausschneiden lassen... Das Gegenteil einer Q2 ist nach meiner Einschätzung eine analoge M: Wegen der geringen Anzahl an Aufnahmen eines Films gehe ich viel sorgfältiger an eine Komposition heran, bin entschleunigter, wachsamer und "knipse" weniger. Ein Bild muss "sitzen". Wie empfindet Ihr das?

Hi Am new to Q2 and I am confused with the term focus range (assuming it refers to shutter speed) under the ELECTRONIC SHUTTER selection in page 91 of the English instruction manual (Image attached). The 3 selections are as follow :- When Off is selected ---- Only the mechanical shutter is used. Focus range 120 s to 1⁄2000 s. When Always On is selected ---- Only the electronic shutter function is used. Focus range 1⁄2500 s to 1⁄40000 s. When Extended is selected ---- You can add in the electronic shutter functions if you need faster shutter speeds than can be achieved with the mechanical shutter. Focus range 120 s to 1⁄2000 s + 1⁄2500 s to 1⁄40000 s. The first selection is clear, there will be no electronic shutter and you are limited to maximum speed of 1⁄2000 s. For the second selection, does it means that electronic shutter will be used only from 1⁄2500 s to 1⁄40000 s and if yes, is that not already the default for Q2 ? If I select this and use 1⁄500 s to take a picture, will Q2 use mechanical or electronic shutter since the manual says ONLY THE ELECTRONIC FUNCTION IS USED? For the third selection, does it means that electronic shutter will be used, regardless of shutter speed? After googling this topic, the closest I can get to an answer is from https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2017/05/leica-sl-firmware-3-0-released-major-updates/ where it document the the new firmware update for the SL (Typ 601): Version 3.0. where one of the the update was to include ALWAYS ON in electronic shutter setting. It goes to say that the best part of version 3.0 is that you can set “Always On” which will activate the electronic shutter function for a much wider range of shutter speeds for completely silent shooting and the range available will depends on your ISO setting. Hope the experts here can enlighten me on this subject. Thank you

Is the buffer on the Q2 the problem some reviewers are making it out to be? Some have said you can out run it after 8 raw images, not even shooting in continuous mode?

Hi, I have a question to all those who use the Q2 alongside with their Sony camera: How far can you go with those Q2 RAW files? [Taking the photos shakefree, deliberately underexpose the photos, increasing the exposure in post-processing etc. just to get the shot.] I would like to read your input in that regard. I own the Sony RX100V (RX100 MK5) & A7RIII (A7R MK3) with a bunch of Sony GM (85mm f/1.4), Sony Zeiss (35mm f/2.8 & 55mm f/1.8), Zeiss (Batis 85mm, Loxia 25mm, Loxia 50mm, Loxia 85mm) and adapted Contax Zeiss (28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.7, 85mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8) lenses. Currently I love using the Zeiss Loxia lenses and so far I like the Q2's lens rendering. I would like to replace most of those lenses and the RX100V, keep the Loxia & 85mm GM lenses and purchase the Q2. The intention is to simplify my gear and at least have only a few autofocus lenses in my repertoire. The 85mm GM can't go because of portrait photography where autofocus is critical (Sony Eye-AF huray!). For fun projects I like using the Loxia 85mm (that glas is ridiculous sharp and contrasty!). The Q2's purpose is for covering the the focal length 28mm[, 35mm and 50mm] with its autofocus lens. I often see myself using my Sony cameras (I had the A6000 & A7II [A7 MK2] before) on my travels in low light situations (www.instagram.com/ryan.lam.888) and I don't carry a full sized tripod with me. Sometimes I have a tabletop tripod and a clamp with me traveling to the destination just in case I need them. However after one or two outings I am able to evaluate whether or not I need them. Oftentimes many locations don't allow you to deploy a tripod on-location (Hello London & Italy! xD ). It is amazing how much I can get out of those Sony RAW files without much noise and banding issues. Can anyone provide RAW files from a Q2 and a Sony camera both shot at the same location with the same low light condition? Thank you!

So wondering how the auto mode decides to come into play or just better to leave on all the time unless using a tripod. Why not leave on all the time? Any thoughts would be appreciated cheers

Here is a macro image of my first camera purchased at the age of 13. I still have it in my collection. Thought it would be fun to have a topic just for Macro with the Q2.

For anyone interested, I both splurged and gambled by ordering the Thorsten Overgaard Q lens hood for my Q2... It fits! (I wasn't sure because of the slightly bigger lens due to the weather-proofing, and I couldn't find where anyone else had already verified compatibility.) I didn't want to have to remove the native Q2 hood to put on/take off a polarizer when needed, plus the native hood makes dialing in a circular polarizer difficult--thus the Overgaard hood. Comes in three colors--black, silver, or red--and arrived from China in just a few days. So, in case any of you were thinking about ordering one, no need to fear incompatibility!

Leica Fotos Update im Apple App Store mit Hinweis "verfügbar ab 03.April 2019" Version 1.1.2

Steve Huff just posted a review on the Leica Q2 (not sure I can include links, so you can Google it if the below link doesn't work): The Leica Q2 Real World Review and Experience. Worth the $5k? http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/03/27/the-leica-q2-real-world-review-and-experience-worth-the-5k/ As much as the Q2 intrigues me, I plan on keeping my Q-P. I can only speak for myself, but I personally feel like there is something unique and different about the rendering on the current 24MP sensor, which is not to take away from some of the gorgeous Q2 imagery I've seen. Steve Huff shares a similar view. To upgrade or not is truly a personal choice. Both models produce beautiful images and both models have their strengths and weaknesses--so I think it is fair to say that either model is not better than the other relatively speaking, they are just different. Find what works for you!

I’d really love to hear from those with extensive Leica Q/Q-P experience who are now shooting with the Q2. I want to focus on the aesthetic image differences between the two models, not necessarily technical or feature aspects. Features aside and “all things being equal”, the Q2 has better dynamic range/shadow recovery (especially at lower ISOs) and the classic Q/Q-P better noise handling at higher ISOs. Both use the same lens, the Q2 has higher resolution clearly – but the classic does have larger pixels. Pixel density and size are different between models, but I’m sure the Q2 is benefiting from other sensor advancements. Sensor size is the same for both, but Leica is fitting in a lot more to yield a higher MP image. I wonder what IQ sacrifices (if any) they would be making to accomplish this? In general, larger pixels do yield a higher quality image and less noise. Noise does clean up a bit in the Q2 if you down sample files to an equivalent size. I know I may be splitting hairs (and I’ll take ownership over this), but specifically, are you seeing any difference in how the files render along the lines of… Organic filmic quality vs. more smoothed-over digital look (some observers are noting that Q2 files look more smoothed over/plasticky/digital looking)? Color (Leica’s colors science should be the same for both – although it’s two different sensors) Pop/3-D quality Out of focus/bokeh rendering (same lens, should be similar) Micro contrast Sharpness (Q2 should be sharper without an anti-aliasing filter) Moire (Q should do a better job of reducing moire with filter) Noise (out of the box and without Q2 down-sampling, the classic Q probably has the edge at higher ISOs) – noise does impact IQ. Every Q2 review I read says, “the files look gorgeous.” But so do the Q/Q-P files. Undoubtedly, files from both look beautiful. Sony files can look gorgeous too, but they don't look the same as Leica - so we need to get more granular when asking if the Q and Q2 render the same. If you took the same exact picture with both cameras, would you even notice a difference, or has Leica done such a brilliant job that the Q rendering is exactly the same in both, with the added benefits of more dynamic range, shadow recovery, etc.? Or do they look completely different in your opinion? Better? Worse? The same but larger? Do you prefer how the Q2 files look over the Q? If so, why? Much of the Leica look comes down to the lens and color science – but is there anything you just can’t put your finger on when comparing how the Q files render compared to the Q2?

Just wondering what the thinking is re this topic.

http://de.leica-camera.com/Fotografie/Leica-Q/Leica-Q2