Jump to content
LUF Admin

Leica Q2 with 47 MP – Improved in all aspects

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did not have the original Q but have been playing around with the Q2 for the last couple of days and the files are gorgeous, hard to fault it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2019 at 7:17 PM, #joachim said:

No, your old thumb rest will not fit perfectly. I've tried it.

See the picture below

 

Got my Q2 today and the first thing I did...



Pretty ghetto but works perfectly.

 

 

Edited by Mr.Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

More horrible, horrible, horrible things about the Q2. 😰 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4377829#forum-post-62468856

Seriously, while I'm not ready to say that I quite love the aesthetics produced by the larger sensor as much as by the Q Classic, that's a subjective response--and one I'll likely change over time. But pixel peeping is an inherently losing game. Buy the Q2 and love using it!

 

Edited by bags27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

 

Got my Q2 today and the first thing I did...



Pretty ghetto but works perfectly.

 

 

As was said at Nasa about John Aaron who made a critical decision to solve an electrical problem on Apollo 12 and 13, you sir are a Steely-Eyed Missile Man. I love your modification and will probably do exactly the same on mine. Any advice on technique is appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really not much to it . I grinded it with a belt sander and matched the curve to the thumb indent of the Q2. Was a 3 minute job. You could do the same with sandpaper but it would take more time, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 1 Stunde schrieb bags27:

More horrible, horrible, horrible things about the Q2. 😰 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4377829#forum-post-62468856

Seriously, while I'm not ready to say that I quite love the aesthetics produced by the larger sensor as much as by the Q Classic, that's a subjective response--and one I'll likely change over time. But pixel peeping is an inherently losing game. Buy the Q2 and love using it!

 

The noise charts are here to stay, I'm afraid, because of the way the ISO is measured. Can you imagine the SL2 with noise graphs like these? People will be all over Leica. But as you rightly point out, they don't tell the whole story. It's the way the light is captured, the files processed, and the effect this creates in the final image that matter. Provided that noise levels are acceptable, and files are malleable, i.e. Highlight detail can be recovered easily where necessary without creating an artificial effect. I'm in the process of posting some pictures, S1 vs. SL at one stop higher ISO for the S1 to match exposure on the L-mount board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

There's really not much to it . I grinded it with a belt sander and matched the curve to the thumb indent of the Q2. Was a 3 minute job. You could do the same with sandpaper but it would take more time, obviously.

I have a stationary belt sander and I can do this easily. Was the rubber piece attached with glue or just with rubber in the hole? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iQ2 said:

I have a stationary belt sander and I can do this easily. Was the rubber piece attached with glue or just with rubber in the hole? 

No glue, it pulls right off.  Make sure you grind it slowly and check for fitment along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Leica Q and I am very happy with it. I would love to get the Q2, which I consider a superior camera, but I do not think I will. It is not just the camera.It is all the accessories which are different for the Q2.  I have 3 Q batteries. The Q2 requires a different lithium battery at $250 each.  On top of the price of the Q2, I have to add $750 for the batteries.  In addition a new finger support plus a new leather half case, and a new handgrip. The only thing in common with the Q and Q2 is the SF 400 flash. The price of the Q2 is not a problem I could get $2,500 for the Q making it a $2,500 difference.  It is the price of the accessories that make the Q2 prohibitive for me.  It is too bad that Leica chose a slightly larger body with different accessories.  

I have the Nikon Z7 and its compliment of lenses. The Leica Q will become my backup camera. Leica lost a sale.

Hektor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Am 2.4.2019 um 05:52 schrieb Hektor6644:

I have 3 Q batteries. The Q2 requires a different lithium battery at $250 each.  On top of the price of the Q2, I have to add $750 for the batteries. 

So you want to have a total number of 4 batteries (the one that comes with it plus 3 more) for the Q2?

I had the Q1 and now I have the Q2 and I can tell you that the Q2-battery lasts substantially longer than the one of the Q1. I don't know what kind of photojobs you do, but I guess you will be fine with 2 additional batteries (+ 500 $) maximum, probably just 1 additional battery (which would very roughly have the equivalent power of the 3 Q1-batteries you are using at the moment). So maybe, you can save at least 250 $, probably 500 $ right there...

Edited by Macberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I dislike about the Leica Q2 is the EVF in the low light. If you set exposure metering to a single spot, the EVF get reaaaally laggy. Did you notice that? And how did the Leica Q handle it in low light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pixelements said:

One thing I dislike about the Leica Q2 is the EVF in the low light. If you set exposure metering to a single spot, the EVF get reaaaally laggy. Did you notice that? And how did the Leica Q handle it in low light?

Q was also laggy in low light.

I've been thinking about. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't' understand why the EVF becomes laggy in low light. Does low light require more processing somehow and the frame rate dips or what difference does the amount of light do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have the original Q and have been very happy with it. Though, of course, a new toy is a temptation and had a good play with the Q2. 

The much bigger and slower in Lightroom files along with the higher ISO noise has turned me off the upgrade.

They are both fantastic cameras though. But if I was buying today, I’d pick the original Q.

If of interest, I wrote about and included a lot of images and examples of comparative noise between the old and new model on my website here:

https://photobasecamp.com/to-q-or-q2-the-question-about-the-amazing-leica-q/

mike

Edited by mikeamosau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent write up. Thank you very much. As a Q owner I can't agree more. This was a home run camera for Leica.  I love mine and do not see and reason to upgrade. Still works like a charm and taking jaw dropping pictures. Whats not to like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 3:17 AM, mikeamosau said:

I have the original Q and have been very happy with it. Though, of course, a new toy is a temptation and had a good play with the Q2. 

The much bigger and slower in Lightroom files along with the higher ISO noise has turned me off the upgrade.

They are both fantastic cameras though. But if I was buying today, I’d pick the original Q.

If of interest, I wrote about and included a lot of images and examples of comparative noise between the old and new model on my website here:

https://photobasecamp.com/to-q-or-q2-the-question-about-the-amazing-leica-q/

mike

I have two issues with this 'review'. First is judging a camera by using it only in a store, and second is comparing outputs at different resolutions. Assuming the final result of a raw file is the same (print, web), the noise should be examined for the same resolution of files, shouldn't it?

I own both Q and Q2 and Q2's EVF is notably better in high contrast situations.

Q2's only disadvantages, when compared to Q, are several omissions in firmware, which will be hopefully fixed in a future update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason for me to switch from Q to Q2  is Gear  Acquisition Syndrome.

Yes i know that 47 mp is better than 24 in terms of cropping ability and detalization, but at the same time you need to control your shutter speed much precisely  to avoid blurred picture (even with OS switched on)

Yes, i know that its weather sealed ,  but  Q2 protection  is not the same as weather sealed Olympus EM1-Mark 2 which for me as the benchmark of weather sealing. 

EVF - the same

Processor - the same.

Lens - the same

 

So many cons, but something is telling me that i buy it anyway someday. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this torture test was discussed already, and pretty much everyone who wants/has one has decided never to take their cameras into the shower.

For me, it comes down to a plus and minus.

Plus: as you say, the sensor/lens produces incredibly sharp photos that crop to usable images at = 75mm focal length. I don't think the blur issue is a deal breaker. I've handheld my Q at 1/4 second and I suspect the Q2 is entirely usable at 1/8 second or even faster.

Minus: the sensor produces very big files. And frankly, not IQ to my taste. But taste is entirely personal. Right now, I'm trying to get more of the film look out of my CL and M lenses, and my Q sits in the closet. 

The only reason to have a camera is because you like what it produces. I'm not currently sold on the Q2 but realize that aesthetics change over time and that I'll probably eventually rediscover my Q and from there likely go to the Q2 (or 3).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with an f1.7 lens one should be able to keep ISO in the lower range. If I was shooting 28mm mainly or only I might prefer the Q. For me I intend to also crop quite often to 35mm and sometimes to 50mm FOV. In this case I really can benefit from the high MP. I have never been a fan of digital crop, but with the MP of the Q2 it gets different story.

I have checked out a Q2 for 2 weeks and found the colors good-but didnt run direct comparisons to other cams or the Q. I decided to get a own copy of the Q2 - so I hop that I will like the output and have good longterm experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mix of 28/35/50 crops 

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Q2 - Live Music by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

 

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy