Jump to content

TL2 versus the Q comparison


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those who have used the Leica Q, and now have the TL2, I am wondering about the comparisons.

 

I know that the Q has a terrific viewfinder (much superior to the TL's optional evf), fast AF, and renders full frame. But how does the AF and IQ on the TL2 compare to the Q. 

 

Appreciate any comments.

 

Rob

Edited by ropo54
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have used the Leica Q, and now have the TL2, I am wondering about the comparisons.

 

I know that the Q has a terrific viewfinder (much superior to the TL's optional evf), fast AF, and renders full frame. But how does the AF and IQ on the TL2 compare to the Q. 

 

Appreciate any comments.

 

Rob

I have both but not on hand with me. But Mu impressions:

 

- The viewfinders on both are very good but the Q has the big advantage of being integrated.

- Autofocus seems faster on the Q.

- Hard to say about IQ. The T image quality is amazing but the last time I used the Q it was also very good indeed.

- Images from both seem better than images from the FujiFilm X-T2, and I say this as a fan of the X-T2 image quality.

 

Hope that helps.

 

- Vikas

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me they fulfill the same purpose. Easy camera, and easy to take with you when you for some reason don't want to go with the M.  

 

The LT2 has some more capabilities in terms of depth of field, and of course you can change lenses. 

 

The Q has the very easy macro.

 

I always wonder what people new to Leica or cameras are deciding for and against with the two. Optical and image quality is not really a difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Q and am quite happy with it, particularly because of the viewfinder and the low light performance (1.7 aperture and ISO  capability) and compactness.

 

I have an SL so am looking for complementary compactness.

 

The TL2 looks like a very nice improvement from the T and I am thinking about purchasing it, but did not want to do so if I will sacrifice that which the Q can provide in terms of IQ and low light performance. 

 

I do appreciate your thoughts regarding.

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I have the Q also. If the IQ of the TL2 was as good as the Q, I might opt to dump my Q for the TL2 and get some money back. The Q I only take with me when traveling light. Great camera but I find is not my 'go to' due to being at 28mm. Will wait to see more IQ comparisons. That is really what matters more to me than any other features.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont own a Q anymore but M/SL and TL2. IMO if you watch exposure the IQ of the TL2 is very good. For some reason the TL2 (like the T and TL) needs some -2/3 exp comp, sometimes even more.  ALso the standard output of the TL2 is a little less contrasty punchy with slightly brighter midtones. But I believe this is more a question of the software.

 

For me the flexibility of the TL2 (regarding focal lengths) is a huge advantage compaed to the Q.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I very much doubt ( not owning either camera, but having seen many images by T and Q)  whether anybody can see an IQ difference in real life. Pixel-peepers - please retire to your reserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont own a Q anymore but M/SL and TL2. IMO if you watch exposure the IQ of the TL2 is very good. For some reason the TL2 (like the T and TL) needs some -2/3 exp comp, sometimes even more.  

 

It seems it's the common thing on later digital Leicas. I keep mine set at -1/3 to -2/3... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own SL, Q, TL2 and T.

 

IMO the Q still has a few things going for it:

  • an integrated and better viewfinder
  • you can use EVF and flash at the same time
  • still better autofocus IMO, faster and with less hunting
  • you can quickly change the focus point using the buttons without taking your eye of the EVF
  • a very convenient macro mode allowing focusing up till 17cm

All of these thing might or might not matter to you...

 

That being said, if you own the SL and the TL2 I believe it is hard to justify keeping the Q as well...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to factor in that the TL will also provide the 1.5x crop factor to one's SL, M and R lenses as well and now with 24mp and better iso performance.  

 

Joris - have you tried the 24-90 VE lens on the TL2?  What did you think?

 

Rob

Edited by ropo54
Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt ( not owning either camera, but having seen many images by T and Q)  whether anybody can see an IQ difference in real life. Pixel-peepers - please retire to your reserve.

Well, I ask the "pixel peepers" what they think of the new sensor on the TL2, squeezing 24 mp into such a small sensor. Would be interested in their opinions.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joris - have you tried the 24-90 VE lens on the TL2?  What did you think?

 

Not yet, and I tried it only once on the T...  That being said, I am taking both the SL and the TL2 to Colorado next week, I might give it a try.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I ask the "pixel peepers" what they think of the new sensor on the TL2, squeezing 24 mp into such a small sensor. Would be interested in their opinions.....

Panasonic  "squeezes"  20 MP into an MFT sensor with excellent  IQ - one stop behind full-frame 24 MP in noise and DR- (it is the equivalent of a  80 MP full-frame sensor), there are high-end 50 MP full-frame sensors out there... Leica sensors originate from Panasonic affiliated companies. It would be the least of my worries. 

 

Sensor technology has reached a level that leaves us free to prioritize lenses, camera ergonomics and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried the TL2 with both zooms. It works, though you are grateful the TL2 is made from such a solid block of metal, and everything feels rigid.

It's not a combination I would choose for comfortable use: my SL has a hand strap and, with the large grip, I can support it more with my right hand than I can with the TL2, which has a small slippery body - your left hand under the lens has to do more work.

The main reason for doing this IMO is to gain the far end of the 90-280 zoom - effectively 520mm. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with either zooms unless it's your only option for particular focal lengths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Panasonic  "squeezes"  20 MP into an MFT sensor with excellent  IQ - one stop behind full-frame 24 MP in noise and DR- (it is the equivalent of a  80 MP full-frame sensor), there are high-end 50 MP full-frame sensors out there... Leica sensors originate from Panasonic affiliated companies. It would be the least of my worries. 

 

Sensor technology has reached a level that leaves us free to prioritize lenses, camera ergonomics and such.

My interest is to hear from "pixel peepers" and thought you were not from your earlier comment

. I don't necessarily agree more pixels on a small sensor is an improvement, otherwise Leica would have gone beyond 24mp in the current M10 and SL. Am guessing that future versions of the M and SL might go higher, but there must be a reason they have resisted to date.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My interest is to hear from "pixel peepers" and thought you were not from your earlier comment

. I don't necessarily agree more pixels on a small sensor is an improvement, otherwise Leica would have gone beyond 24mp in the current M10 and SL. Am guessing that future versions of the M and SL might go higher, but there must be a reason they have resisted to date.

 

... processing power ....

 

the corrected deficiencies in the T and M plus the super functionality of the SL are the result of the Maestro II processor pinched from the S. Until we have Maestro III, 24mpx will remain the optimum sensor resolution. 

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather doubt is just processing power. The m10 came out long after the Sony A7r2 so they had plenty of time to improve the power and up the resolution.

 

And just an update on my original reply to this post, it got me thinking more about replacing my Q with TL2. For now, the Q is just too good to let go. Great lens and IQ and lightening fast. For the times I need to go lightweight, will keep it. But looking forward to seeing more pics from the TL2 and future generations. Love the T platform.

Edited by Belle123
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, I have two questions not exactly refering to the original thread subject yet will ask here .

 

Has anyone compared  the TL2 with the SL in APS-C mode  - I mean with the same lens mounted on each body - ?!

Would the output quality be similar ?

 

Quoting Jonathan Slack : "I would love an APS-C mini SL" ...

 

 

Any progress on the Visoflex EVF / TL2 issue?!

 

Best, JM.

Edited by JMF
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...