Simon Posted March 18, 2019 Share #81 Posted March 18, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) @mikeamosau Wouldn’t 47 MP require at most double the computational resources as 24? Maybe it feels like longer, or you’re hitting memory capacity or Lightroom is poorly optimised. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 Hi Simon, Take a look here Leica Q2 with 47 MP – Improved in all aspects. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vikasmg Posted March 18, 2019 Share #82 Posted March 18, 2019 On 3/7/2019 at 2:38 PM, shutterpete said: I have a Q I would very much like to sell, but not to trade in against the new Q2. Can I be cheeky and ask what did you get for your Q? As I might put mine up for sale this weekend. I paid £2800 for a pristine used version from a very reputatble dealer in the UK still with Warranty. Thank you. Sorry for the late reply. I got Singapore $3000/- for it. About £1680/-, I think. I am not sure if it was a good price or not - I sold it to a friend didn’t really verify that whe he offered me that price. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikasmg Posted March 18, 2019 Share #83 Posted March 18, 2019 On 3/11/2019 at 8:11 AM, Tom. said: Just read this in the manual. No reviewer did notice this (because they didn't have a manual I guess, and the app isn't updated yet): "GPS data will be automatically determined and written to the Exif data when pictures are taken while the camera is connected to the Leica FOTOS app." If I’m not mistaken I did read it in a review. Either Jono Slack or Reid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted March 19, 2019 Share #84 Posted March 19, 2019 On 3/18/2019 at 3:12 AM, Simon said: @mikeamosau Wouldn’t 47 MP require at most double the computational resources as 24? Maybe it feels like longer, or you’re hitting memory capacity or Lightroom is poorly optimised. It is not always linear relationship. Worst case would be processing images with limited amounts of free memory. That could cause the OS to spend many cycles swapping resources in and out of memory. It's called thrashing: a computer spending more time trying to free up memory to do a job than it spends actually doing the job. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 19, 2019 Share #85 Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, marchyman said: It is not always linear relationship. Worst case would be processing images with limited amounts of free memory. That could cause the OS to spend many cycles swapping resources in and out of memory. It's called thrashing: a computer spending more time trying to free up memory to do a job than it spends actually doing the job. With only one front-most task our computers today don't swap at all. Edited March 19, 2019 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marchyman Posted March 20, 2019 Share #86 Posted March 20, 2019 My machine is running 1544 threads from 380 processes as I type this. It is somewhat idle as only 3 of the 4 cores are currently active. My point is "one front-most task" does not describe my machine. Perhaps yours is different. As for swapping (and paging, which I didn't mention) -- it is highly dependent upon available memory. My desktop has plenty of available memory so rarely (maybe never) see pageouts or swapouts. Running the same mix of programs on my laptop is a different story. That poor machine has pageouts just by launching lightroom. If I try to edit an image from lightroom in photoshop the machine logs swapouts, too. Swapping and paging are still a thing for some people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 20, 2019 Share #87 Posted March 20, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Live music - Got a 128gb card and two sets in with four sets to go I’m thinking I should have brought another card just in case Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 20, 2019 Share #88 Posted March 20, 2019 Is the Q2 "noisier" than the Q? I don't know what this means. I suspect that, with a sensor twice "as large", this is to be expected. https://leicarumors.com/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted March 20, 2019 Share #89 Posted March 20, 2019 Q2 is noisier than D850 or A7R III And noisier than any 24MP Leica. Downsampling should counter that a bit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 21, 2019 Share #90 Posted March 21, 2019 23 hours ago, nicci78 said: Q2 is noisier than D850 or A7R III And noisier than any 24MP Leica. Downsampling should counter that a bit. What is your source? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 22, 2019 Share #91 Posted March 22, 2019 2 hours ago, SrMi said: What is your source? the source is what I cited above. of course likely ALL larger sensors are noisier in camera. https://leicarumors.com/2019/03/20/leica-q2-sensor-measurements-published-at-photonstophotos-compared-with-leica-m10-sl-nikon-d850.aspx/ But then I saw this test of comparable dynamic range, which is really weird. I am not tech savvy enough to interpret it. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica Q (Typ 116),Leica Q2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 22, 2019 Share #92 Posted March 22, 2019 3 hours ago, bags27 said: the source is what I cited above. of course likely ALL larger sensors are noisier in camera. https://leicarumors.com/2019/03/20/leica-q2-sensor-measurements-published-at-photonstophotos-compared-with-leica-m10-sl-nikon-d850.aspx/ But then I saw this test of comparable dynamic range, which is really weird. I am not tech savvy enough to interpret it. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica Q (Typ 116),Leica Q2 What Leica Rumors posted is kind of misleading. Leica Rumors uses the graph "Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting" in the wrong way. With that graph, you cannot really compare cameras (though you can compare the form of graphs). The original source (photonstophotos.com) states fop that graph: "These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area." On the other hand, the second link you referred to (PDR vs ISO setting) is the graph to use if you want to compare cameras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted March 22, 2019 Share #93 Posted March 22, 2019 What's important to me in that graph is the Max PDR because when I need a lot of DR for post it's usually a strongly backlit subject where ambient light is sufficient enough to use base ISO. The Q2 peaks at 10.82 @ ISO50 whereas the Q peaks at 9.66 @ ISO100. That is more than a full stop which is quite significant. (also happy to see my X1D peaking at 11.98) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orguy Posted March 22, 2019 Share #94 Posted March 22, 2019 Can't someone please shoot and display some Q vs. Q2 shots at high ISO? So all things get considered: newer sensor, different number and size of pixels, etc. so we could really get a visual bottom line on this with our eyes? Also, as I requested in my thread, could someone do highly detailed subject (buildings, brick wall, resolution chart) and then display blown up center and edge shots? (admittedly edge shots might suffer somewhat from slight curvature of field rather than resolution edge falloff) Then we can really judge the image quality with our eyes and all the variables in the mix. This is what we ultimately care about, no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 22, 2019 Share #95 Posted March 22, 2019 25 minutes ago, Orguy said: Can't someone please shoot and display some Q vs. Q2 shots at high ISO? So all things get considered: newer sensor, different number and size of pixels, etc. so we could really get a visual bottom line on this with our eyes? Also, as I requested in my thread, could someone do highly detailed subject (buildings, brick wall, resolution chart) and then display blown up center and edge shots? (admittedly edge shots might suffer somewhat from slight curvature of field rather than resolution edge falloff) Then we can really judge the image quality with our eyes and all the variables in the mix. This is what we ultimately care about, no? In case you didn't know already, Sean Reid (reidreviews.com) has done a comparison of Q and Q2 shots at various ISO values. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 22, 2019 Share #96 Posted March 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, SrMi said: In case you didn't know already, Sean Reid (reidreviews.com) has done a comparison of Q and Q2 shots at various ISO values. Standardised ISO test? I took ISO comparison shots between Q and Q2, however the Q exposed 2/3rds a stop brighter - so like for like ISO was not comparable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orguy Posted March 22, 2019 Share #97 Posted March 22, 2019 20 minutes ago, SrMi said: In case you didn't know already, Sean Reid (reidreviews.com) has done a comparison of Q and Q2 shots at various ISO values. Ok, that’s what IQ2 told me too on my thread. I guess I’ll just have to pony up and pay the subscription price. So you all seem to think it’s worth it, I gather. Thanks, everyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 22, 2019 Share #98 Posted March 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, dancook said: Standardised ISO test? I took ISO comparison shots between Q and Q2, however the Q exposed 2/3rds a stop brighter - so like for like ISO was not comparable. Good point, but my simple tests show less than 1/2 stop difference for same ISO. I do not think anyone does standardized ISO tests, correct? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 22, 2019 Share #99 Posted March 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, SrMi said: Good point, but my simple tests show less than 1/2 stop difference for same ISO. I do not think anyone does standardized ISO tests, correct? I think dpreview do for their studio comparison tool, just bits of things i heard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted March 24, 2019 Share #100 Posted March 24, 2019 Am 22.3.2019 um 18:57 schrieb dancook: Standardised ISO test? I took ISO comparison shots between Q and Q2, however the Q exposed 2/3rds a stop brighter - so like for like ISO was not comparable. I started a discussion on this on the Panasonic cameras here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295518-s1-s1r-snr-vs-tonal-range-vs-color-sensitivity-question/?tab=comments#comment-3708241 Well spotted by you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.