Q2 47 mps, Dirt & Drip proof & new EVF (FWIW!)

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still undecided. 

Upgrade to Q2 + second expensive SL battery will cost me around 2500€ after selling my Q. For what benefits ? Does it worth them ? 

After reading reviews and checking all available comparison photos between 24MP vs 42/45MP 24x36 cameras, such as A7 III vs A7R III or D750 vs D850 or Z6 vs Z7

We can conclude that there is a sharpness advantage for 42/45 MP cameras until ISO 6400. At 6400 and more 24MP are better, the extra pixels are lost in the noise. The higher ISO we use, the noisier 42/45MP will be, compare to their 24MP siblings. 

It seems to be also the case between Lumix S1 24MP vs S1R 47MP as Panasonic rates its cameras this way :

- S1 24MP ISO from 100 to 51,200 extended from 50 to 204,800

- S1R 47MP ISO from 100 to 25,600 extended from 50 to 51,200 only if I dare to say. 

 

Owners of 24MP and 42/45MP full frame camera, what’s your experience about this ? 

Edited March 1, 2019 by nicci78

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

8 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

After reading reviews and checking all available comparison photos between 24MP vs 42/45MP 24x36 cameras, such as A7 III vs A7R III or D750 vs D850 or Z6 vs Z7

 

try comparing it to https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/rx1r-ii-review

[dancook]

14 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Owners of 24MP and 42/45MP full frame camera, what’s your experience about this ? 

Even with those MP comparisons, the sensor tech between Q and Q2 won't be like for like.

I cannot say much, as the X1D 50MP "medium" format is not comparable to a full frame 24MP sensor.

But a downsampled A7RIII beats out a 12MP A7S

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7s&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0

Edited March 1, 2019 by dancook

[dancook]

A7III vs A7RIII @ ISO 51,200 - Downsampled, not a lot in it

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7iii&attr13_1=sony_a7riii&attr13_2=panasonic_dmcfz80&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=80&attr16_3=32&attr126_1=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0

[nicci78]

57 minutes ago, frame-it said:

try comparing it to https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/rx1r-ii-review

Good idea. In downsample mode (comp.) surprisingly Q is a little bit better than RX1R II from 100 ISO until 25K ISO after that, as Q did not apply any noise reduction, Sony RX1R II looks better. Anyway as dancook says at 50K every cameras are bad. 

I think that the Leica Summilux-Q 1,7/28 is way sharper than the Zeiss Sonnar 2/35. Therefore these results. So in the end will not be comparable to Q vs Q2  

 

[frame-it]

19 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Good idea. In downsample mode (comp.) surprisingly Q is a little bit better than RX1R II from 100 ISO until 25K ISO after that, as Q did not apply any noise reduction, Sony RX1R II looks better. Anyway as dancook says at 50K every cameras are bad. 

I think that the Leica Summilux-Q 1,7/28 is way sharper than the Zeiss Sonnar 2/35. Therefore these results. So in the end will not be comparable to Q vs Q2  

 

you shoot photos regularly at ISO 50,000 ?

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hopefully never

But until 25K yes, if I have too. 

What I see from all these comparison, is that from 6400, 24MP are a little bit better than 42/45MP. 

11.5% of my last 5 years photos are shot with more than 3200 ISO setting

Edited March 1, 2019 by nicci78

[jmschuh]

This is only a problem of pixel peepers and not a problem from the practice of photography. Since a higher resolution requires a lower magnification for the output or presentation of photos, you will no longer get a seemingly higher noise.

The second mistake: Trying to compare different generations of sensors. With every new generation of sensors we have a further development in terms of full well capacity and quantum efficiency.

This is all typical forum talk without any practical reference to photography.

The biggest advantage of a Q2 with 47MP is the possibility to crop the images with a higher resolution. 35mm and 50mm should have a great quality and the 75mm not much worse than the 50mm with the Q1

[frame-it]

Just now, jmschuh said:

This is only a problem of pixel peepers and not a problem from the practice of photography. Since a higher resolution requires a lower magnification for the output or presentation of photos, you will no longer get a seemingly higher noise.

The second mistake: Trying to compare different generations of sensors. With every new generation of sensors we have a further development in terms of full well capacity and quantum efficiency.

This is all typical forum talk without any practical reference to photography.

thank you..:)

[nariza7]

i’ve owned the a7rii for awhile and i’ve noticed the 42mp take up so much storage space, along with taking longer time to load on my imac than other files. not sure if i will use 47mp at 28mm, but maybe  mainly at 35mm @ ~30mp. the weather sealing would be my #1 reason, but just have to calculate the $$ to see if it’s worth it or just stick to my 5 year accidental warranty to cover any dust or whatnot.

[Mr.Q]

I've shot at ISO 6400 maybe 200-300 times with my Q, but rarely are the images any good. High ISO can be useful to shoot in a pinch and expectations should be treated as such.

 

[nicci78]

5 minutes ago, jmschuh said:

This is only a problem of pixel peepers and not a problem from the practice of photography. Since a higher resolution requires a lower magnification for the output or presentation of photos, you will no longer get a seemingly higher noise.

The second mistake: Trying to compare different generations of sensors. With every new generation of sensors we have a further development in terms of full well capacity and quantum efficiency.

That's why I only compare at downsample or print mode, not full res, to see if higher pixel counts still matter.

And I only compare within the same generation. Ex A7 III vs A7R III or Z6 vs Z7 or D750 vs D850. 

Not perfect methodology, perhaps, but I can still conclude, that 42/45MP lose any advantages at 6400 and higher. 

Of course new generation Q2 sensor will be better than 4 years old Q. So it may not be relevant here. Just wait and see the real output of Q2. 

 

Of course at lower than 6400 ISO 42/45MP beats 24MP one easily. 

[nicci78]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

I've shot at ISO 6400 maybe 200-300 times with my Q, but rarely are the images any good. High ISO can be useful to shoot in a pinch and expectations should be treated as such.

 

Sadly I have to shoot in very dim environment. So high ISO is quite important for me. And flash kills the mood

[jmschuh]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

Just wait and see the real output of Q2. 

That's a very good idea. Otherwise we'll talk about things that we've never seen before or held in our hands.

Maybe we should be happy that there is something new and that the price is still quite adequate.

[Leica Guy]

On 2/28/2019 at 1:39 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

What's the practical/performance difference between OIS and IBIS in a fixed lens camera?

I read on DP Review that the Internal Shake Reduction could mean 5 1/2 stops improvement. That would be incredible. I’m looking forward to a full review of the Q2 by them and other credible reviewers. 

[nicci78]

Decision is over.

Before having the CL. My Q was used for 60% of all my pictures from mid 2015 to end 2017. 21% was shot with a M Monochrom or M10. Leftover are from Sony RX1/10/100 cameras.

But after buying the CL. My Q was only used for 36% of my pictures from the beginning of 2018 until today. CL was used for more than 57%. What's left is M and T photos. 

So there is no reason to spend 2500€ into a fixed 28mm lens camera I use less and less. I will buy another nice lens for CL instead. Yes CL is very good and a pleasure to shoot with.

 

 

[bags27]

31 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Decision is over.

Before having the CL. My Q was used for 60% of all my pictures from mid 2015 to end 2017. 21% was shot with a M Monochrom or M10. Leftover are from Sony RX1/10/100 cameras.

But after buying the CL. My Q was only used for 36% of my pictures from the beginning of 2018 until today. CL was used for more than 57%. What's left is M and T photos. 

So there is no reason to spend 2500€ into a fixed 28mm lens camera I use less and less. I will buy another nice lens for CL instead. Yes CL is very good and a pleasure to shoot with.

 

 

Just started using the CL with my Q also, and beginning to understand it. The Q's IQ jumps out in a way that the CL hasn't yet: the Q sometimes takes my breath away; no such moment yet with the CL. But I love using the CL: it is such a cool, cool instrument, and the flexibility, with a world of fantastic lenses (including R mounts and non-Leica lenses--my old Nikons) is such an attraction: I have no problem at all with manual focus. But just as nearly everyone else here, I think the perfect camera would be a small-form SL, but I doubt that's (ever) coming.

In Jono's just posted review of the new 35mm f/2 L lens on the L mount thread, the photos are simply astonishing. Would be a great (if wildly expensive and somewhat heavy) 50mm for the CL....

Edited March 1, 2019 by bags27

[nicci78]

What’s also bother me is that the Q2 is using the SL battery. No more sharing with CL, what a bummer. 

Q2 is certainly designed to be an SL or future SL2 companion. Sharing the same battery and being both weatherproof.

However CL was designed to be a Q wingman, by sharing the same battery system. And offering complementary focal lengths  

So it is best, cheaper and wiser to keep the Q + CL

Edited March 1, 2019 by nicci78

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Mr.Q]

17 minutes ago, bags27 said:

The Q's IQ jumps out in a way that the CL hasn't yet: the Q sometimes takes my breath away; no such moment yet with the CL.

Precisely the experience I had with my brief ownership of the CL. It's IQ was comparable to my Fuji X cameras, in that they were technically great, but not astonishing like the results I regularly got with my Q and M10 (and now X1D). I love surprises when reviewing the images on my PC, and once spoiled, there's no turning back 😁

[nicci78]

I think it is more a lens thing than a sensor thing  

Nothing is comparable to the Summilux-Q 1,7/28. 

But I enjoy using Summilux-TL 1,4/35 with CL. It’s output rival Summilux-M 1,4/50 asph with M10. Of course I cannot mimic its wide open thin depth of field. But put it against the Summicron-M 50 with M10, the TL 35 with CL is clearly better. 

I also love shooting macros with APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 2,8/60 with CL or T. Absolutely beautiful film like grain high ISO macro shot. Looks like macro shot with color negative films, love it. 

Anyway right now I love to make portraits with Summarit-M 2,4/50 + CL. I love its soft beautiful bokeh. 

 

To sum up it is a lens thing. CL with these lenses are capable of photos that the Q cannot reproduce. And vice versa. It is better to have both.