Jump to content

Leica Q a $5K camera and auto focus sucks


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am returning my 29 day old leica Q for the same reason. I like the camera but over half of my images out of 700 images from from numberous outings are no good due to poor focus. I have tried every focus mode, different apertures, the Macro ring is not selected. I have figured out a few like when the AF ring slips off the setting or when you have touch focus on the wrong part of the frame which were my mistake but over half when done correctly or at least I think correctly are no good. 

 

It very well be something I am doing wrong or an issue with the camera but I cannot afford to have a camera I cannot trust to get tack sharp images. Of one that I have to triple check everytihng every time I take a picture one of the things that sold me on the Q was simplicity you pick it up it turns on quick and AF is supposed to be so great. I have not experienced that.

 

Very disappointed too because I really wanted to like this camera and there are several things I do like about it very much but out of focus images doesn't work for me.

 

With the ten Sony bodies and cameras I have had and now my a7rIII and a9 this is siimply not an issue and never has been. I guess I will see if they make the RX1R III larger and fix a bunch of things or get a A6700 first quarter I am not wild about a APS-C sensor but I guess they are making it a higher resolution and other nicities it has a flash which can come in handy and is actually a half an inch narrower and 1/3" less in height and I can use my ten G Master and Zeiss lenses plus get the crop factor 1x5. 

 

I could pick up my a6500 and never had an issue with AF. If even ten percent of the photos were not tack sharp I would not keep it but in my case it is more like 60-70%

 

 

I am going to exchange it it almost has to be a decentered lens or defective camera. The Q has received too much praise with a capital P for its quick and accurate AF for me to be having these issues. Another thing I am noticing is the ISO in automatic seems higher than it should be for a given scenes as well as lower shutter speeds. An out door photo overcast but still outdoord mid day F2.8 ISO 800 1/50th of a second? 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there's probably nothing mechanically or electronically wrong with your camera.

 

First, given Leica's manufacturing, QC processes, and the number of well working Qs out in the wild, I find it hard to believe they would ship a camera with a "decentered" lens, or any other physical malady that would cause this. I'm sure there's some with problems, but not like this. Second, reading your past posts, and then these two, I'm thinking you're trying too much to use the Q as a point-and-shoot camera, which it is not. It's a camera that you need to put some work into, both mental and physical, to control the camera. All allegedly"automatic" devices have their limitations, and with the Q, you can't just point it and release the shutter and expect beautifully composed, and perfectly exposed/focused pictures. The more you control the Q's AF, and exposure systems (including the ISO settings), the higher degree of success you'll achieve.

 

My guess would be, that using it the exact same way you use your present Q, the new camera you trade for will render the same results.

Edited by beez
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

Sorry to hear that the Q autofocus isn't working for you. 

So far, my Q has been astonishing! 

I just came back from Iran (Tehran, Tarbiz, Zanjan, Hamedan, Shiraz and of course Esfahan). All my photos were great! 

In 2016, I went to Pakistan with this Q too. Too a treacherous journey into the Hindukush from Peshawar -> Swat Valley (amazing place btw) then all the way to Chitral Valley (northern point near Wakhan Corridor) The photos? There are amazing! It was such a memorable trip!  

 

In 2015, I took this Q to the borderlands of Nepal and Tibet, a place called Upper Mustang. Hiked the whole way up to the Tibetan, Manag settlement villages. Spend the freezing Christmas up the mountains with limited electricity. The photos were also amazing (firmware version 1.0)

 

My next trip is to the Russia's Baikal Lake...or Pamirs? I will bring this Q with me again.



 

Bought this camera because it is "Autofocus" but that is one thing this camera does bad; auto focus.

Went on a ten thousand miles trip from Germany to Iran and by land from Iran, through Azerbaijan to Dagestan to Chechnya to Russia to Kazakhstan and ended up in Kyrgyzstan and five out of ten photos are out of focus.

Maybe I am doing something wrong, but, when time and "discretion" are needed to come out with a good shot, this camera sucks.

Tried all settings; face recognition, to single point to multiple points and the result ended up being the same. Got way better pics with my iPhone 7 Plus.

Most times I use the 28 mm set....

Anybody has any input on this, or the same problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be I sent it back and have another one coming. I cannot help to feel that with as many complaints I am seeing on AF it concerns me. I did not spend $$$$ on this camera to miss focus. That is supposed to be one of the best things about the camera and when I can pull out practically any other camera and not end up with out of focus images I probably will return in if I continue to have issues. No offense to anyone but last thing I need is a camera that works differently than all my Sony's that I have to work at to achive consistent AF. I do not mind learning the camera but it has to work for me and be a reliable tool. It is hard to see if focus is spot on with a 28mm lens to begin with so you end up finding out that your images were botched when you get home and basically wasted some nice photo opportunities.

 

When I use larger spot or center they appear to be much more consistent but another real concern I have and perhaps for those of you without 5k monitors do not notice as much as I do is at anything higher than ISO 800 I see too much noise which is very limiting when it comes to shutter speeds and DOF. Does anyone have any suggestions on that because everythign I read says it is excellent in this regard but I am not seeing it. I am used to the Sony a7rIII and A9 which are very good low light higher ISO so that may be part of it.  Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I use larger spot or center they appear to be much more consistent but another real concern I have and perhaps for those of you without 5k monitors do not notice as much as I do is at anything higher than ISO 800 I see too much noise which is very limiting when it comes to shutter speeds and DOF. Does anyone have any suggestions on that because everythign I read says it is excellent in this regard but I am not seeing it. I am used to the Sony a7rIII and A9 which are very good low light higher ISO so that may be part of it.  Thanks

 

Any photographic camera is for taking PICTURES not for pixel-peeping ;)

The higher your screen resolution the less you see the whole picture. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be I sent it back and have another one coming. I cannot help to feel that with as many complaints I am seeing on AF it concerns me. I did not spend $$$$ on this camera to miss focus. That is supposed to be one of the best things about the camera and when I can pull out practically any other camera and not end up with out of focus images I probably will return in if I continue to have issues. No offense to anyone but last thing I need is a camera that works differently than all my Sony's that I have to work at to achive consistent AF. I do not mind learning the camera but it has to work for me and be a reliable tool. It is hard to see if focus is spot on with a 28mm lens to begin with so you end up finding out that your images were botched when you get home and basically wasted some nice photo opportunities.

 

When I use larger spot or center they appear to be much more consistent but another real concern I have and perhaps for those of you without 5k monitors do not notice as much as I do is at anything higher than ISO 800 I see too much noise which is very limiting when it comes to shutter speeds and DOF. Does anyone have any suggestions on that because everythign I read says it is excellent in this regard but I am not seeing it. I am used to the Sony a7rIII and A9 which are very good low light higher ISO so that may be part of it.  Thanks

Sorry about your problems, it must be extremely frustrating and disappointing to spend a lot of money in anticipation of a great camera ,to find that it is not working properly or to your expectations based on reviews or this forum.

My Q , that I purchased used from a store in Montreal, performs as advertised, I have not had a bad image in the two years that I have owned this camera.

Images are acceptable up to 12500 iso, focus has always been spot on in various modes , I do have a 5k monitor,  frequently "pixel peep" and use Capture one and Affinity  for processing.

From what you're describing, you Q is seriously faulty , please let us know your experience once you receive the exchanged Q.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank your for your reply but 100% is not pixel peeping it is normal viewing.

 

per the font of all knowledge, google search, first hit...

 

"Pixel peeping" is a derogatory term used to describe people who examine photographic output at the pixel (100%) level. There are times when minute examination is useful and times when it is pointless. Sensible people only do it when it's worthwhile.

 

Viewing at 1:1 isnt typically normal viewing.  Monitors can't equal the native resolution of the Q at 6k by 4k, so viewing at 1:1 means the image on screen is cropped.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My screen displays 5120 x 2880 so I save most to 4,000 pixels which is good enough for my photos but I also save the original and one at 5120 pixels which will display at 100% on my 27" screen at 100%.

 

Am I missing something or are we talking about the same thing. I am confused how looking at a 4000 or 5120 pixel image is cropped or pixel peeping. I realize I have downscaled the image and also reduced noise at the same time for it to fit on my screen at 100% but explain how that is pixel peeping to me it seems like actual size.

 

The only time I would ever check 200 to 500% is if I bought two copies of a very expensive lens and trying to determine which one is the best by comparing at several apertures or apertures and FL's in the case of a zoom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

per the font of all knowledge, google search, first hit...

 

"Pixel peeping" is a derogatory term used to describe people who examine photographic output at the pixel (100%) level. There are times when minute examination is useful and times when it is pointless. Sensible people only do it when it's worthwhile.

 

Viewing at 1:1 isnt typically normal viewing. Monitors can't equal the native resolution of the Q at 6k by 4k, so viewing at 1:1 means the image on screen is cropped.

I regularly examine macro photos at 1:1 to select among a series of shots for the sharpest image. This helps me overcome issues with poor focus accuracy, depth of field issues, movement by wind. I find it very helpful in those situations. The same is true for non-macro images although I don’t use it for them as often.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Viewing at full resolution has two components, the mode your monitor is set in, presumably native resolution, and then mapping each individual pixel coming from the camera to a single pixel on the display.   Setting the monitor to native res is necessary to be able to get to a 1 to 1 mapping of the photo on your monitor, but with a Q a 5k monitor is insufficient for viewing at 100% without the edges of the photo being obscured, cropped, clipped, scrollable, however you want to think about it.  

 

When you resize a photo to the native resolution of your monitor, you have to decide which edge you're going to resize it to.  6000 x 4000 is 2:3.   5180 / 2880 is 16:9.   Even when you resize the image to fit the screen, unless you crop to 16:9 and even then you still cant look at 100% unless you accept that the result wont fill the screen when preserving the 2:3 aspect ratio.  The native  display ratios are at odds, you can not by definition be seeing a 1:1 image to pixel view unless its  clipped in some way or you've resized the image below the short edge of the native display. 

 

I edit with LR on a standard HD monitor at present. When I 'pixel peep', which BTW, I do all the time, I click the 1:1 button. Fitting the photo to the entirety of the display by hitting fit and <TAB> means I'm being downsized to 32% of the original image. So I only see about 1/3 of the image, I have achieved a 1 to 1 mapping of the sensor pixel to a display pixel. That is what 100% means in this context. Not having only 100% of the monitors resolution, but the sensors as well. 

 

If you want to think of things as 100% when you've downsized and saved to a new resolution to suit the native capabilities of your monitor, by all means, but it makes no sense as a final image unless the only way you will ever view your photos is on a native 5k display. If you're printing or eventually get an 8K display, where now as the monitor resolution exceeds the sensors, you now can see the entire image on screen at 1:1 with room to spare in the meantime, you have done yourself a disservice if you cant recover the originals or forgot that your edited copies are no longer  at native resolution of the sensor.

Edited by Tailwagger
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I would ever check 200 to 500% is if I bought two copies of a very expensive lens and trying to determine which one is the best by comparing at several apertures or apertures and FL's in the case of a zoom?

 

As soon as you get over 100%, you actually start to lose resolution, as you're no longer mapping the pixels on the monitor to pixels on the sensor. At 200%, there would be nothing sharp, and at 500%, a digital image would be complete mush, and would make trying to determine the quality difference between two lenses at whatever aperture or focal length a complete waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you would know the camera is defective, which yours seems to be... then why not try solve the problem... by shooting at F8 for example. Sure this is not a long term solution, but it would save your shots on the long trip you undertook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Dubai and captured people in “discreet mode” with Q half hidden with a scarf... In those situations I use the full auto mode in which this camera is really producing amazing results. You can have an idea looking some here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/isabel_lucena/albums/72157674397502733/with/31712752511/

I also use the P mode when someone ask me for photographing an event (thing I hate...) I just choose speed and let the Q do the job, ISO auto, multipoint, all pics come out with people focused.

I bought this cam 2 years ago for its weight, quality and discretion for everyday life, nothing to complain about it.

Give it a new try to check if there is a problem.

One clue: didn’t you by error turn the macro ring on? That happened to me at the beginning and I couldn’t understand why it wasn’t focusing, I had a sweaty moment till I discovered my mistake...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I’m not a Q shooter, but curious about most new cameras, especially Leicas. All this talk about focus really puzzles me, when you are addressing a wide angle lens/camera. Everything is in focus from one meter to infinity, if you stop it down a bit. I don’t want to sound patronizing, but from many years af taking pictures, I never had problems focusing wide angle lenses. If you use it close up on full aperture, you have to check your AF or your manual focus. But for shooting people or landscapes outdoors, you don’t even have to focus . Leave the focus at 3 meters and stop it down to say 8, and shoot away. AF is sometimes messing focusing wide angles up. Focusing to close, if you want both the foreground and background to be in focus. So switch it of and use the dof scale instead.

If you’re interested in blurry backgrounds, use another lens, telephoto or a little shorter. You could use a 28 up close on full aperture, but for people it’s not flattering, distortion , big noses etc. For products it could be useful , when you’re in a small room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given what one can reasonably expect from a contrast detect system, I can't say I ever had any unreasonable issues with the Q AF while shooting under quite varied conditions.  There's certainly truth in what you say, but there still are any number situations where opening the lens beyond f8 or focusing closer is necessary.  All lot depends on what you're trying to accomplish compositionally and how much light there is to deal with.  While some buy a Q for its size and simplicity, attributes I genuinely appreciate, for me, it was predicated on the speed and rendering of the lens. If the Q had been shipped with a f2.8, rather than a f1.7, I would never have considered owning one.

 

A couple of quick to hand examples of people and landscapes where f8 wouldn't work AFAIC.  The first shot wide open, the second focused close but at f3.2 to get sufficient DoF on the subject but with suitable fall off for a sense of dimensionality.  In both cases, aperture and focus point were crucial. And the Q performed flawlessly, both in extreme low light as well as a fluid, unposed, situation.  While I throughly agree that zone focusing is quite valuable, its not a panacea. But either way, it shouldn't be a remedy or excuse for a camera's poor performance (not that the Q performs badly, as hopefully these shots suggest). 

 

39166071561_29cb2019ee_b.jpg

 

39422532522_10b97bd1e8_b.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my out of focus photos were of the discrete kind in Iran, mostly, where I had pointed the camera, low on my body, towards subjects passing by, and everything would be in focus, except the subject(s) .....

On one occasion I was at Mamayev Kurgan, had a red flower as an offering, and was trying to focus the flower with the monument in the background. It would not focus at all into the flower. I changed AF settings at that spot from facial to multi point to single point, and nothing would make the camera focus on that flower right in front of it!

I normally use single point focusing, but I’ve had extremely good success using multi-point focus when around multiple people or groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Points taken Tailwagger. Nice pictures, but all low light situations. Photography is all about light, and sometimes you have lots of it.

In low light photography 2,8 is sufficient, practical only one stop slower than 1,7. Your pictures show, that you can create an atmosphere and a “feeling” in the pictures by leaving the background semi blurred. I think, that I’m a little biased by mostly using wide lenses for nature and people , where I wanted focus front and back. My favorite outfit for many (film) years was a Leica with a 35 and a slr with a 85 . So the closeups often came from the 85 and the totals from the 35.

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...