Second thoughts for those on Q waiting list?

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my opinion there are two more important deciding factors:

- sensor resolution: of course in favour of the Sony, but it only matters if you print in huge size

- user experience: subjective, but for sure the two cameras are very different (I like both, but prefer the Q with significant margin)

 

Focal lenght might be the deciding factor if you want 28mm, which of course can't be had with the Sony.

If you like 35mm you can have it cropping the Q frame, and if you don't print in huge size the resolution is plenty enough.

 

So I think the choice is a little more complex that "simply" deciding if you prefer 28mm or 35mm.

 

Please do not twist my words around. Where did I say that the deciding factor is "simply" 28mm or 35mm?  I listed 7 other factors.

 

And cropping is not the same thing as having the 35mm perspective.  If it was, why do people with ILC cameras even bother with multiple lenses? 

 

And yes you get 15mp and 5mp for 35mm and 50mm respectively with the Q. But you get 20mp and 10mp for 50mm and 70mm respectively with the RX1R II.  There's some food for thought.

[gdipaola]

I didn't mean to be negative about your post, sorry if I gave the wrong impression, it's probably due to my poor English.

I understand you listed several factors, but none of them seems to me really important except sensor resolution.

In my opinion if one makes a decision according to those factors is missing the real difference between the two cameras, but it's cleary just an opinion and I tried to share it for what it's worth.

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Q]

I didn't mean to be negative about your post, sorry if I gave the wrong impression, it's probably due to my poor English.

I understand you listed several factors, but none of them seems to me really important except sensor resolution.

In my opinion if one makes a decision according to those factors is missing the real difference between the two cameras, but it's cleary just an opinion and I tried to share it for what it's worth.

 

No problem, but honestly, I try to be as objective as I can with these comparisons because I own both cameras and love them both!

 

In my humble opinion, the following things are very important when choosing a camera: size, handling, EVF, AF speed/accuracy, MF implementation, lens color/rendering, sensor performance, tilting screen, and touchscreen.

 

And I feel focal length is much more important than resolution.

[pop]

(...)

And cropping is not the same thing as having the 35mm perspective.  If it was, why do people with ILC cameras even bother with multiple lenses? 

 

And yes you get 15mp and 5mp for 35mm and 50mm respectively with the Q. But you get 20mp and 10mp for 50mm and 70mm respectively with the RX1R II.  There's some food for thought.

Actually, cropping is the same thing as "having the 35mm perspective". The only thing that's different is the number of pixels remaining in the cropped image, and this is the reason for many photographers to change lenses when they want another field of view.

 

The image sizes for the  Q are 24, 15 and 8 MP.

[sblitz]

I understand the math in this calculation but I don't think it I correct in terms of conveying quality of sensor. Not sure you can take any 20mp sensor with a 50 and say it is same as Q cropped. There is an overall quality and software translation that makes the simple cropping of mp a realistic vision of IQ

[pop]

I understand the math in this calculation but I don't think it I correct in terms of conveying quality of sensor. Not sure you can take any 20mp sensor with a 50 and say it is same as Q cropped. There is an overall quality and software translation that makes the simple cropping of mp a realistic vision of IQ

Well, you can't. If it's to be comparable you'd have to take an 8 MP sensor and use it with the 50mm lens, or a 15MP sensor with a 35mm lens.

 

That's one of my reasons for not buying a Q; I'm not fond of 28mm lenses and not of 8MP sensors, either. Usually, that is. The D2 is still a lovely device but it has its strengths elsewhere, the main one being that I already have it.

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fair enough. My only point is that there is a lot including the design of the sensor itself that matters.

[Mr.Q]

Actually, cropping is the same thing as "having the 35mm perspective". The only thing that's different is the number of pixels remaining in the cropped image, and this is the reason for many photographers to change lenses when they want another field of view.

 

The image sizes for the  Q are 24, 15 and 8 MP.

 

Nope, you're right about the final image, not the experience. The Q helps you visualize a 35mm frame, but it is not entirely the same thing as shooting and framing with a 35mm lens.  As I've said, if you prefer a 35mm FOV you might as well shoot with it versus cropping from a 28mm every time you shoot.

I stand corrected on the MP of a 50mm crop.

Edited November 16, 2015 by jaapv

[goodrich62]

Congrats for reaching this point in your life. And for chronicling the rest with a Q. Happy shooting.

Deliberate1

Thanks. I've loved photography since shooting with my farther as a boy he with his rangefinder me with my brownie always B/W more than half the fun was the magic of making the pictures in our pantry/darkroom. 

 

Too bad about Classic Connection being out of stock he had stock for awhile I guess the secret is out

[sblitz]

Is a cropped 15mp shot from a Q the same as a straight 35mm shot on a 15mp sensor? I think not. I think there is a lot to the IQ from any sensor that is more than just the simple math of cropped mp from the sensor. Angles, software, etc all matter. And I think the cropped 35mm shot from my Q looks better than the 18mp 35mm uncropped shot from my M9 using a 35mm summicron lens, or perhaps the IQ from an M8 using a 50mm lens. And therein lies my point, simple math isn't everything here -- it is something at the extreme but not everything.

[Mr.Q]

The introduction of the RX1R II has really stirred things up for me....... I currently own both the Q and original RX1, and I vastly prefer the Q even though my preferred focal length is 35mm.  The simplicity and overall speed (AF and operational speed) of the Q cannot be beaten by any other mirrorless camera.  However, I really miss having a tilting screen. I have it on my A7's and It makes shooting discretely (waist-level shooting) so much easier. 

 

For me, it ultimately comes down to the "versatility of the RX1R II"  vs  "user experience of the Q".  The tilt-screen and the ability to crop 42MP images adds versatility (no need to carry a 50mm lens with my A7's anymore) to the RX1R II, while the Q still retains it's edge in the shooting experience department. I'll have to carefully weigh my priorities while I continue to shoot with my Q.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Mr.Q

[Photon42]

I cannot imagine selling my Q for a Sony. Sometimes it makes "click" ...

[Viv1857]

After trying the Q, I paid cash straight away and am still waiting  . However I think now I will check out the RX1R2 before accepting delivery. Based on results for the A7R2 the RX could well have the best IQ ever seen. That, tilt screen and high 'cropability' may compensate for the gorgeous feel of the Q. Lets see.....In the meantime I struggle on with my X100T .

[Mr.Q]

I think someone made a good comparison between the Q and RX1R II when they said the Leica is a Porsche 911 GT3 and the Sony is a Nissan GT-R.  The GT-R is faster but the GT3 is more fun to drive.  It depends on what you value and which you prefer, but it really doesn't make sense to own both unless you're filthy rich.

[bigkraig]

Sounds good. I plan on using my Q to take a lot of photos of my GT3. 

[ricky1981]

Got mine today, for those still waiting I would say stay patient as first impressions are that it is very much worth it

[WTRP]

Steve Huff is well known as a Sony fanboy, his RX1Rii speculation is a bit absurd since no one has properly reviewed it.

 

In ideal situations I expect the Sony will have technically better images and if you prefer 35mm then the Q is immediately out of the running but for me the Q is still my pick.

 

Main reasons:

 

- Handling is much nicer, I had the RX1 and it's size is convenient but not all that comfortable

- AF of the Q is very good, I don't expect the Sony to be as good

- Better MF

- Stabilisation - 42MP without IBIS is a mistake for me, with that res you'll need some high shutter speeds or a tripod

- I prefer 28mm but that's a personal preference

- I prefer the Leica "experience", I loved the RX1 images but never bonded with it like my X100 which was much more fun despite its well-known flaws

- resale value, the Q will likely hold value better which pretty much wipes out the initial price difference

Stevie is a fanboy on anything new although he was an original Leica fanboy for the longest time.

 

If the Q floating your boat for the time being, why even bother about resale value unless your ready to jump ship?  Just use until it dies and then give it a proper funeral.  But bang for the buck the bang goes to the Sony RX1RII and leaves a slightly smaller hole in ones' pocket.

[WTRP]

I think someone made a good comparison between the Q and RX1R II when they said the Leica is a Porsche 911 GT3 and the Sony is a Nissan GT-R.  The GT-R is faster but the GT3 is more fun to drive.  It depends on what you value and which you prefer, but it really doesn't make sense to own both unless you're filthy rich.

More fun is...subjective.

[Mr.Q]

More fun is...subjective.

 

Yes it is. Perhaps I should have said "more involving to drive?"  Whatever fits your bill.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Photon42]

That is why these discussions exist. The car comparison is farther away from me than the camera one. I neither got even close to any of these machines, but I already do have an opinion on what to chose 

 

@Mr Q: your avatar shows so much dedication. Do you really want to disappoint him?