viramati Posted February 24, 2019 Share #81 Posted February 24, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) I hav On 2/16/2019 at 4:22 PM, dancook said: From a street photography perspective (where this camera truly shines!) it's not basically the same size, A Sony body with comparable optics is considerably larger, I tried to replace the Leica Q with the Sony A9 - super fast AF, silent The closest prime, the 28mm f2 (and it's still a bigger combo), the image quality was not good enough. All my 1.4 primes are much larger, and I'm not interested in using them for street. Also what makes the Q shine far brighter than the Sony for my use, is being able to see both the shutter speed and aperture with a glance. I have just sold my Q and am now using my A7rIII with the 24mm f1.4 GM lens and yes it is bigger but makes for a more versatile setup. I am sorry to leave Leica and if I win the lottery a Q2 will be in my bag 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2019 Posted February 24, 2019 Hi viramati, Take a look here Leica Q 2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Leica Guy Posted February 24, 2019 Share #82 Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, viramati said: I hav I have just sold my Q and am now using my A7rIII with the 24mm f1.4 GM lens and yes it is bigger but makes for a more versatile setup. I am sorry to leave Leica and if I win the lottery a Q2 will be in my bag Your posts and photos will be missed. I for one hope a Q2 falls in your bag. Soon! I predict you'll come running back to the Q2. The A7RIII is a great camera, but it's not a Leica. I've spent some time with that camera. The resolution is amazing, but the ergonomics are not Leica and the Summilux Q lens is special. Good luck to you. Edited February 24, 2019 by Infiniumguy 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted February 24, 2019 Share #83 Posted February 24, 2019 This is, indeed, very sad for us, though it is always a good thing when photographers find new ways to express themselves. You have great talent, and we will definitely miss your contributions. Since you hope to win the lottery to return here, just take all your money and bet on 77777777. 😀 Safe and productive travels! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted February 24, 2019 Share #84 Posted February 24, 2019 Thank you for you kind words. It is indeed the end of a long journey with leica my selling of the Q (something I thought I would never do) and who knows if I will be able to justify the new Q2 when it arrives. I found the Q to be the best digital Leica so far but over the last year it has got less and less use so it is an expensive thing to have sitting in the safe and it is going to a good home with a friend of mine. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaradaisy Posted February 24, 2019 Share #85 Posted February 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Infiniumguy said: Your posts and photos will be missed. I for one hope a Q2 falls in your bag. Soon! I predict you'll come running back to the Q2. The A7RIII is a great camera, but it's not a Leica. I've spent some time with that camera. The resolution is amazing, but the ergonomics are not Leica and the Summilux Q lens is special. Good luck to you. The Sony 24mm 1.4 G lens he purchased is very special as well. The optics are sensational, which is why it has been sold out everywhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted February 24, 2019 Share #86 Posted February 24, 2019 46 minutes ago, xaradaisy said: The Sony 24mm 1.4 G lens he purchased is very special as well. The optics are sensational, which is why it has been sold out everywhere. Yes without a doubt the 24GM has a certain something special and is the reason why I let the Q go 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted March 2, 2019 Share #87 Posted March 2, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 2/24/2019 at 9:42 AM, viramati said: I have just sold my Q and am now using my A7rIII with the 24mm f1.4 GM lens and yes it is bigger but makes for a more versatile setup. I am sorry to leave Leica and if I win the lottery a Q2 will be in my bag I'll definitely be sorry to see you leave Leica and your Leica pictures - aren't you at least tempted by a second hand M3..?? 😉 That Sony lens really does look special though...☺️ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 2, 2019 Share #88 Posted March 2, 2019 2 hours ago, robert_parker said: I'll definitely be sorry to see you leave Leica and your Leica pictures - aren't you at least tempted by a second hand M3..?? 😉 That Sony lens really does look special though...☺️ Always tempted and of course i would love a Q2 but really it's hard to justify the economics of it. On the other hand never say never 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikasmg Posted March 3, 2019 Share #89 Posted March 3, 2019 On 2/24/2019 at 4:42 AM, viramati said: I hav I have just sold my Q and am now using my A7rIII with the 24mm f1.4 GM lens and yes it is bigger but makes for a more versatile setup. I am sorry to leave Leica and if I win the lottery a Q2 will be in my bag Sorry to hear that. Like many others I will miss your posts. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 4, 2019 Share #90 Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) This may not be the appropriate place to discuss this, but, given the bigger is better Q2 and the changing aesthetics of digital photography, maybe it is. By sheer coincidence and absolutely no intention, I happened to take two photos today of the same birdhouse at the local Audubon Society. The first is with the Q. The second is with the CL, 80-200 R mount, 2x extender, probably at around 150 equivalent mm and further away. Both were shot wide open. Absolutely sure, the Q picture jumps out as sharper with more alive colors (although I probably post-processed differently). But the more I stared at them, the more I came around to preferring the other shot as more realistic, less interpretative. Just saying. 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! audubon bird motel by Bags 27, on Flickr audobon flophouse by Bags 27, on Flickr Edited March 4, 2019 by bags27 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! audubon bird motel by Bags 27, on Flickr audobon flophouse by Bags 27, on Flickr ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/277195-leica-q-2/?do=findComment&comment=3694783'>More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted March 4, 2019 Share #91 Posted March 4, 2019 i agree. Which was one of the reasons i contemplated selling the Q last year.. i felt the images were too clinical Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaradaisy Posted March 4, 2019 Share #92 Posted March 4, 2019 4 hours ago, bags27 said: This may not be the appropriate place to discuss this, but, given the bigger is better Q2 and the changing aesthetics of digital photography, maybe it is. By sheer coincidence and absolutely no intention, I happened to take two photos today of the same birdhouse at the local Audubon Society. The first is with the Q. The second is with the CL, 80-200 R mount, 2x extender, probably at around 150 equivalent mm and further away. Both were shot wide open. Absolutely sure, the Q picture jumps out as sharper with more alive colors (although I probably post-processed differently). But the more I stared at them, the more I came around to preferring the other shot as more realistic, less interpretative. Just saying. 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! audubon bird motel by Bags 27, on Flickr audobon flophouse by Bags 27, on Flickr I do not think that's a fair comparison. The first shot looks heavily processed, with a HDR feel to it. The shadows have been pushed in that pic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted March 4, 2019 Share #93 Posted March 4, 2019 Sorry, but that comparison is meaningless. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted March 4, 2019 Share #94 Posted March 4, 2019 28mm and 150mm. That does not quite match 😀 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 4, 2019 Share #95 Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) hi all, the first shot wasn't heavily processed at all. if it looks that way, well, that's how it looks. As to focal distance, I'm guessing on the 150, since I have a vague sense of where I was standing at the time and therefore how the zoom was set. I don't get EXIF with my R-L adaptor. The minimum it could have been is 120 (80-200 zoom on a 1/2 sensor). Finally, I love the Q and not trying to compare lenses or cameras. I'm essentially comparing aesthetics. I do believe that massive jumps in digital capacity increases both in-camera and post- processing, and that means that photos gravitate (not inevitably but largely) to a different look. It's the old comparison between analogue and digital music, and why, despite all the advantages of digital, some folks are willing to spend massive bucks on analogue. Or why virtually every post-processing software available includes programs to actually ADD grain and/or make files look more "film like." BTW, the zoom I took the 2nd photo with was manufactured in the days of film. Edited March 4, 2019 by bags27 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmschuh Posted March 4, 2019 Share #96 Posted March 4, 2019 Don't trust a test you haven't screwed up yourself. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted March 4, 2019 Share #97 Posted March 4, 2019 You're still not making any sense, bags. That first image has shadows lifted by quite a bit. I've shot enough images with the Q to know what the SOOC images look like. Mind sharing the DNG? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted March 4, 2019 Share #98 Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, bags27 said: hi all, the first shot wasn't heavily processed at all. if it looks that way, well, that's how it looks. As to focal distance, I'm guessing on the 150, since I have a vague sense of where I was standing at the time and therefore how the zoom was set. I don't get EXIF with my R-L adaptor. The minimum it could have been is 120 (80-200 zoom on a 1/2 sensor). Finally, I love the Q and not trying to compare lenses or cameras. I'm essentially comparing aesthetics. I do believe that massive jumps in digital capacity increases both in-camera and post- processing, and that means that photos gravitate (not inevitably but largely) to a different look. It's the old comparison between analogue and digital music, and why, despite all the advantages of digital, some folks are willing to spend massive bucks on analogue. Or why virtually every post-processing software available includes programs to actually ADD grain and/or make files look more "film like." BTW, the zoom I took the 2nd photo with was manufactured in the days of film. I easily would choose the Q image. I don’t care for the contrast in the 2nd image. I suspect I would turn this into a monochrome and I’d like it even more. Not sure which one in that case. Q ON Bags! Edited March 4, 2019 by Infiniumguy 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 4, 2019 Share #99 Posted March 4, 2019 Hi Mr. Q, I'm really sorry, but I trashed the dng after turning it into a jpg. It wasn't an important enough photo to keep the larger file. I agree that the shadows seem lifted, probably in Camera Raw, maybe even using the automatic adjustment. Of course, I shot the Q at f/1.7, the zoom at equivalent of f/8 and, following advice, -2/3 EV, so I may not have lifted the zoom photo much, because, again, it wasn't a significant photo. anyway, as I said, it was never intended as a comparison, just a coincidence, so it couldn't have been more uncontrolled. But I take your point: if the Q photo was processed--and maybe more than I remember--then it's an unfair comparison, a sort of straw man. Still while, for example, increasing dynamic range through more pixels can be exciting, it significantly challenges a reality of what the human eye perceives. It has always been the case that the eye is both superior and inferior to a photographic image. Just that the gap of the eye's inferiority is increasing, and that leads to interesting questions of aesthetics and representation of reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgdinamo Posted March 4, 2019 Share #100 Posted March 4, 2019 46 minutes ago, Infiniumguy said: I easily would choose the Q image. I don’t care for the contrast in the 2nd image. I suspect I would turn this into a monochrome and I’d like it even more. Not sure which one in that case. Q ON Bags! I also prefer the Q image. This actually reminds me why I made that choice back when I was deciding which camera to get (when I was viewing many examples in corresponding dedicated Q and CL image threads and generally preferred the Q images). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now