Q2 to be announced in May?

[OR120]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, evikne said:

I think a fixed 35- or 50mm lens would be much more interesting. But that would probably cannibalize the M-System too much?

Yes to a Leica Q with a fixed 50 1.4

[ynp]

40 minutes ago, ramarren said:

The iPhone 8 Plus and X models have a dual camera setup that includes a wide angle and a short telephoto lens set. Switch the camera to 2x and you're on a different lens and camera. The Portrait mode of the camera goes to the longer lens camera, keeps it at full aperture, and adds processing to help blur the background. 

 

 

Thank you Mr.G 🙏  My iPhone is an ancient 6 plus, but I have had a need to be using an Android application and got myself a Huawei P20 Pro with 3  Leica lenses. Learning how to use it’s multiple cameras now .

Probably in five years the Leica  Q4 will have four lenses : the 28mm., the same Summilux as a Main lens, and three  supplementary lenses in a cluster to help make computation of the 35,50, 90 field of view with the full resolution and no cropping 😇

Meanwhile,  l am going to follow your steps and ordered two TL lenses, including the T-Summicron to get the 35mm field view on my future CL.

yevgeny 

 

 

 

 

🙏 

[Advertisement]

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

[bags27]

I used the P20 at a store in Europe and was completely blown away by the pictures.

And now it's not even cutting edge:

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/phones/mate20-pro/

Hoping Leica is getting access to all those algorithms. .

Edited November 5, 2018 by bags27

[IkarusJohn]

Quote

   6 hours ago,  evikne said: 

But a digital zoom or cropping doesn't give the same result as a real 35- or 50mm lens.

 Yes it does.

Come now, Pico.  You know that is only half the issue.

Sure, if you don't move, and take images with 21mm, 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses, the perspective will remain the same (on the central image); but that is not the same as digital zooming or cropping.  Provided you are using lenses of a similar quality, it is reasonable to expect the image taken with a good telephoto, framed the same, will provide a better image than a digitally cropped one.  The telephoto will use the entire sensor, whereas the crop will use only the central part, with all the disadvantages that go with it.

While I recognise that the digital zoom in the Q (50 & 75?) is a neat trick, it is really doing nothing that you can't do in post processing.  I have the same function on the SL which enables me to take square images and other formats - the original full frame image is preserved ...

 

[LichtUndDunkelheit]

12 hours ago, zampelis said:

 Say that you are 3 meters away from your subject with a 28mm lens and you crop the image to an equivalent of 50mm lens, then the image that you will get will have exactly the same bokeh and overall look as if it was taken with a 50mm lens from the same distance and with the same aperture.

Well thats wrong. A lens will always project the exact same image, no matter what sensor you put below it.

 

 

[zampelis]

2 hours ago, LichtUndDunkelheit said:

Well thats wrong. A lens will always project the exact same image, no matter what sensor you put below it.

 

 

I am afraid you missed the point. I was not talking about the "projection" of the image on the sensor. I was referring to the final result. In our case you can't talk about "cropping" without taking in consideration the sensor and its size. In a scenario where you have a 28mm lens on a 24MP full frame sensor, and you crop it to 50mm 8MP equivalent sensor, the result on depth of field would be the same as using a 50mm lens equivalent with the same aperture on a 8MP full frame sensor. Now maybe the full frame has better noise performance due to the larger pixel size and you can very easily go down the rabbit whole when you start nitpicking details like these (you go to the full frame vs APS-C e.t.c debate and start arguing wether full frame provides better quality than cropped). The point is that with a good enough sensor like the one in Q the cropped 50mm images will have identical depth of field and will look extremely similar to an imaginary 8MP full frame sensor with the same quality lens in a 50mm version using the same aperture. If you use a denser in pixels full frame sensor than 8MP then that would make zero difference on the depth of field.

Edited November 6, 2018 by zampelis

[zampelis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

[...] Provided you are using lenses of a similar quality, it is reasonable to expect the image taken with a good telephoto, framed the same, will provide a better image than a digitally cropped one.  The telephoto will use the entire sensor, whereas the crop will use only the central part, with all the disadvantages that go with it.

 

 

I wonder how many viewers experience the entire sensor in the photos they are looking in their every day life. I mean, I agree that it is nice to be able to make some large prints, but have you realised that we have spent hundreds of hours browsing this forum, admiring photos that are technically not larger than 1 megapixel  (the 1280 limitation) and on top of that quite compressed in their jpg form. We are wasting every time at least 90% of the sensor capacity without feeling uncomfortable or uneasy... I wonder, (with the exception of making a 33.1 x 46.8 inch large print that you need to stare from 3 feet away) how many times someone will look on a photo and say: "Nah... that 1 megapixel photo could be a masterpiece if it used the entire 36 MP but now it is a piece of garbage..  just utilising the central 18 MP of this awesome sensor".

 

12 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

[...] Provided you are using lenses of a similar quality, it is reasonable to expect the image taken with a good telephoto, framed the same, will provide a better image than a digitally cropped one.  The telephoto will use the entire sensor, whereas the crop will use only the central part, with all the disadvantages that go with it.

 

 

 

When cropped at 35mm, the 24MP full frame sensor of the Q acts almost as a back illuminated 18MP APSC due to the size of the sensor area per pixel compared to the wiring area. So I can honestly not see any disadvantages that go with it other than the lower resolution.. the opposite, you may get a better low light performance and you will definitely get less noise...

 

EDIT:

By the way, even with 10MP you can still get excellent results on a 20x30'' print:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by zampelis

[sls]

I've got a 990 x 330mm landscape print on my desk, cropped from a Q image, so using less than 50% of the total image. No issues with it. So why are more pixels needed?

I'm off on a small group photo weekend, first time, was sent a kit list recommending an SLR, 16-35 and 70-200. I shall be wielding my Q most of the time, weighs less than a Canon 16-35 lens, plus an M7 and M0 and a few lenses, including my 28 Summaron and 180 Telyt-R. Picked up some of the new Kodak E100 the other day, so please let the sun shine a bit. I'm rather looking forward to making use of the new Leica app for remote control, M10 and Q on the same app using Huawei Android (at last on the M10). It'll be interesting walking about with SLR users fiddling around with settings, I've had the Q since launch day and it is the most intuitive and quick camera to use, for which reason my wife loves it. She also loves her Huawei P20 Pro images. 

[trstahly]

38 minutes ago, sls said:

I've got a 990 x 330mm landscape print on my desk, cropped from a Q image, so using less than 50% of the total image. No issues with it. So why are more pixels needed?

I'm off on a small group photo weekend, first time, was sent a kit list recommending an SLR, 16-35 and 70-200. I shall be wielding my Q most of the time, weighs less than a Canon 16-35 lens, plus an M7 and M0 and a few lenses, including my 28 Summaron and 180 Telyt-R. Picked up some of the new Kodak E100 the other day, so please let the sun shine a bit. I'm rather looking forward to making use of the new Leica app for remote control, M10 and Q on the same app using Huawei Android (at last on the M10). It'll be interesting walking about with SLR users fiddling around with settings, I've had the Q since launch day and it is the most intuitive and quick camera to use, for which reason my wife loves it. She also loves her Huawei P20 Pro images. 

I’ll say the same thing I’ve said over and over 95% of the people who make the comments about not needing more have ever used more MP

 

kind us silly to comment on something you know nothing about.

 

[sls]

19 minutes ago, trstahly said:

I’ll say the same thing I’ve said over and over 95% of the people who make the comments about not needing more have ever used more MP

 

kind us silly to comment on something you know nothing about.

 

I had a 36mp Sony, it was horrible to use, gave it to my son. 

[IkarusJohn]

6 hours ago, zampelis said:

I wonder how many viewers experience the entire sensor in the photos they are looking in their every day life. I mean, I agree that it is nice to be able to make some large prints, but have you realised that we have spent hundreds of hours browsing this forum, admiring photos that are technically not larger than 1 megapixel  (the 1280 limitation) and on top of that quite compressed in their jpg form. We are wasting every time at least 90% of the sensor capacity without feeling uncomfortable or uneasy... I wonder, (with the exception of making a 33.1 x 46.8 inch large print that you need to stare from 3 feet away) how many times someone will look on a photo and say: "Nah... that 1 megapixel photo could be a masterpiece if it used the entire 36 MP but now it is a piece of garbage..  just utilising the central 18 MP of this awesome sensor".

Oh yes, well aware.  But then I don't take pictures for posting on this forum.

What you do get from the photo forum here is a sense of composition and exposure.  I don't waste a lot of time looking at what is in focus and I have limited interest in out of focus treatment here (one forum member's endless comparisons makes me want to ask "shoot me now").  I am one of the forum members who has flirted with the higher MP cameras (A7r and d800e) and said no thanks - happy with 24MP.

But, I'm not really into taking all my photos at 28mm and then cropping as needed.  Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I like to get the exposure as right as I can, white balance (if I remember) and composition using the whole frame.  I have cropped on occasion - birds in flight with an M9 and APO Summicron 90 ASPH - and it has worked; sort of, but not as good as what you might crop on an image taken with an SL with 90-280 Vario-Elmarit.

Short answer - I prefer to use the right lens for the image I wish to take.  That way I feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of the camera and best use of the lenses I have.

PS - I should add that I learned my photography at a time when zooms were pretty ordinary, so I used primes mostly.  Part of the lens selection is how you wanted to use the change in perspective, distortion and depth of field with chosen focal lengths.

Edited November 6, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[evikne]

Different focal lengths make me think, feel and behave differently. To me, shooting with a 50mm lens is very different from for example a 28mm. It's about much more than just a tighter framing. More a kind of mood, I think. But that’s probably one of the reasons why a Q isn’t for me. I prefer an M where I can put on different lenses depending on what I need or what I want.

[sls]

57 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Oh yes, well aware.  But then I don't take pictures for posting on this forum.

What you do get from the photo forum here is a sense of composition and exposure.  I don't waste a lot of time looking at what is in focus and I have limited interest in out of focus treatment here (one forum member's endless comparisons makes me want to ask "shoot me now").  I am one of the forum members who has flirted with the higher MP cameras (A7r and d800e) and said no thanks - happy with 24MP.

But, I'm not really into taking all my photos at 28mm and then cropping as needed.  Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I like to get the exposure as right as I can, white balance (if I remember) and composition using the whole frame.  I have cropped on occasion - birds in flight with an M9 and APO Summicron 90 ASPH - and it has worked; sort of, but not as good as what you might crop on an image taken with an SL with 90-280 Vario-Elmarit.

Short answer - I prefer to use the right lens for the image I wish to take.  That way I feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of the camera and best use of the lenses I have.

PS - I should add that I learned my photography at a time when zooms were pretty ordinary, so I used primes mostly.  Part of the lens selection is how you wanted to use the change in perspective, distortion and depth of field with chosen focal lengths.

Agree entirely, save that my Q fits in my pocket and does an awful lot, especially on general walkabout. The 36mp I flirted with was the A7R, just awful to use and my son trashed it after two months in China. No great loss (it cost me £700 used and we got some use out of it). The SL system is too heavy for me. I shall be off this weekend with Zeiss 21/2.8, 50 Lux, APO Summicron 90 ASPH and 180 Telyt-R (works very well on the M10 with the Visoflex and preferably a monopod). It's relatively small and light and can carry all day no trouble. 

I used to go walkabout with an M and 35/f2. Still do, or with a 50 Lux, probably 50/50 M vs Q.

[IkarusJohn]

If I want pocketable, I put my 28 Summaron-m on my TL2. Or use my phone ... actually, my phone is very good. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[Whitford]

On 11/5/2018 at 8:21 PM, OR120 said:

Yes to a Leica Q with a fixed 50 1.4

I would buy that in a heartbeat.

[Mr.Q]

I'm no hurry to sell my Q, but if the Q2 came with weather-sealing I'd be tempted to upgrade. I don't need more megapixels, but it wouldn't stop me from buying either. Better video features with 4K would be nice as well.

[frame-it]

On 11/8/2018 at 11:49 PM, Whitford said:

I would buy that in a heartbeat.

+1

 

if it actually stayed at f1.4 at its closest focusing distance

[LeicaMyQ]

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 9:55 AM, tgdinamo said:

Great build and image quality are primary decisive factors and that's exactly what separates the Q from competition so I"m not sure where we are disagreeing or what you are asking?

Image quality in photography is primarily impacted by the quality of the lens on the camera (at least in my experience of 40 or so years in this hobby), which is where Sumilux stands head and shoulders above any other lens I have ever used (as far as high quality lenses my previous experience is primarily with Canon L lenses which are also very nice, but Sumilux is better, even compared to my long time personal favorite Canon EF 35mm 1.4L).

As far as build quality, Q is very nicely built (although should be weatherproof - that's my only complaint).

Amen, Brother! I have owned multiple iterations of Canon (10D, 5D, 5D Mark II) with the famous red stripe lenses, which I ditched for the Sony A7R, and then A7RII with their equally remarkable glass. Sold the Sony for the Q. Bottom line; there simply is no Canon or Sony lens that trumps the f1.7 Summicron on the Q. 

The rumored Q2 with more Megapixels is a transparent appeal to the "more is better" mindset. Lens quality + Sensor size is far more important than how many, "Angels (Mp) you can fit on a pinhead".

I will keep my, "old Q", thank you very much. (I can crop to 75mm in Lightroom, if need be, with minimal loss in image quality, and save mega $$$)

Where is the weather/dust sealing? If we must have video, what about 24fps? Please fix the Single/Continuous positions on the Power Switch! These are things that matter.

[wda]

Actually my top priority improvement would be to add a tripod bush to the handgrip. All other Leica handgrips I own have a tripod bush. No need to wait for Q2 to satisfy this need.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[trstahly]

2 hours ago, LeicaMyQ said:

Amen, Brother! I have owned multiple iterations of Canon (10D, 5D, 5D Mark II) with the famous red stripe lenses, which I ditched for the Sony A7R, and then A7RII with their equally remarkable glass. Sold the Sony for the Q. Bottom line; there simply is no Canon or Sony lens that trumps the f1.7 Summicron on the Q. 

The rumored Q2 with more Megapixels is a transparent appeal to the "more is better" mindset. Lens quality + Sensor size is far more important than how many, "Angels (Mp) you can fit on a pinhead".

I will keep my, "old Q", thank you very much. (I can crop to 75mm in Lightroom, if need be, with minimal loss in image quality, and save mega $$$)

Where is the weather/dust sealing? If we must have video, what about 24fps? Please fix the Single/Continuous positions on the Power Switch! These are things that matter.

My first question is how much experience do you have with a 42 or 50MP sensor or are you just speculating?

You mention that you can do 75% crops with only minimal loss of quality. How about being able to do 200% crops or 100% crops without losing any image quality and still having a 4,000 pixel image?

Have you experienced the noise reduction when downsampling from 7900 pixels to what ever pixel size you typically save your files at?

Would you support the idea of a Q2 that only has 18MP since MP is not that important to you?

Why do you suppose the same lenses many of which are in the top ten lenses tested test higher and in many cases considerably higher when used on a Sony A7rII or III versus a Sony 24MP sensor like the Q?

I am not wanting to argue far from it but I question how much you know about the advantages, higher ISO and lower light capabilies and more one can achieve with more MP and modern sensor design. The Q is three years old a lot of advancements have been made in sensor tech, three years today is like five six or seven ten years ago.

The Q is a fine camera I owned two of them but for it to keep its status as a up to date modern camera it needs to be updated and many others on this thread have said the same there are lots of things Leica can do to make this a more useful tool and enable one to capture better images.