TheEyesHaveIt Posted March 8, 2019 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not apples to apples, but the new sensor makes the Q2 a much more flexible camera than before IMO (I had a Q previously). You essentially have a 35 and a 50 without needing to change the lens or buy them (though without the natural compression a longer focal length would give you). 75 gets a little small in the megapixel number but possibly still useable, especially for the web / mobile. Weight is lighter than the CL + 18 to 56 and faster lens. Weather and dust sealed as well. Certainly makes a compelling case for the Q2, at least for a compact travel camera (if you need something specific like portraits or wildlife, then probably not)... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2019 Posted March 8, 2019 Hi TheEyesHaveIt, Take a look here Q2 or the CL?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
monther Posted March 8, 2019 Share #2 Posted March 8, 2019 Without meaning to state the obvious, there is no ‘natural compression’, the location of the lens is all that effects perspective, not focal length. But yes it certainly makes a reasonable alternative to a CL and equivalent focal length lenses for example. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEyesHaveIt Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share #3 Posted March 8, 2019 What I meant was if you shoot a 35 and a 75 from the same location, you will have different depth compression (the background will appear differently). You won’t get that difference with the Q2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dau Posted March 8, 2019 Share #4 Posted March 8, 2019 24 minutes ago, TheEyesHaveIt said: if you shoot a 35 and a 75 from the same location, you will have different depth compression You should try and do that. Then you might see that the two focal lenghts offer different fields of view but exactly the same "depth compression". The sense of depth is produced by the distance from the scene, as monther above already said. Depth of field is another story, however. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEyesHaveIt Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share #5 Posted March 8, 2019 Sorry you guys are right. I was misinformed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted March 8, 2019 Share #6 Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) Q2 does not change anything. If you need to change lenses : CL If you want to use your M lenses : CL if you need weather sealing : Q2 If you need fast 28mm : Q2 if you need 47MP : Q2 if you want real zooms : CL If you want longer and wider focal length : CL. Yes 50mm and 75mm equivalent lenses will be better with CL if you want smallest form factor : CL with TL 2,8/18mm or 2/23mm Q is a dual-Summilux-Q 1,7/28-35mm. 50mm for emergency Q2 is now a tri-Summilux-Q 1,7/28-35-50mm. 75mm for emergency. Honestly 50 and even worst 75mm frame lines are way too small, for proper composition and precise focusing. Making them hard to use properly or almost impossible with 75mm crop Edited March 8, 2019 by nicci78 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgdinamo Posted March 8, 2019 Share #7 Posted March 8, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, nicci78 said: Q2 does not change anything. If you need to change lenses : CL If you want to use your M lenses : CL if you need weather sealing : Q2 If you need fast 28mm : Q2 if you need 47MP : Q2 if you want real zooms : CL If you want longer and wider focal length : CL. Yes 50mm and 75mm equivalent lenses will be better with CL if you want smallest form factor : CL with TL 2,8/18mm or 2/23mm Q is a dual-Summilux-Q 1,7/28-35mm. 50mm for emergency Q2 is now a tri-Summilux-Q 1,7/28-35-50mm. 75mm for emergency. Honestly 50 and even worst 75mm frame lines are way too small, for proper composition and precise focusing. Making them hard to use properly or almost impossible with 75mm crop I agree with most of the list, but not that 47MP and weather sealing do not change anything (for those who like more cropping flexibility and piece of mind). 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted March 8, 2019 Share #8 Posted March 8, 2019 Yes that’s right. Tough choice. Get both : same UI, so it is easy to use together. 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgdinamo Posted March 8, 2019 Share #9 Posted March 8, 2019 1 minute ago, nicci78 said: Yes that’s right. Tough choice. Get both : same UI, so it is easy to use together. CL is not for me. I looked at it closely before I bought the Q but much prefered the Q. I have recently also purchased Fuji GFX 50R with few great GF lenses and am really enjoying that system so far. By the way, CL was not an option for me because I don't like APS-C and also find the system too small - even though I love my Q after using it for about a year or so I have learned that I much prefer larger cameras to comfortably shoot so decided I'm willing to live with carrying around DSLR sized equipment again to get better ergonomics). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobers Posted March 8, 2019 Share #10 Posted March 8, 2019 The CL gives you up to 200mm (35mm equiv) with the 55-135 so if you want a long zoom that’s the way to go. The Q2 seems to cover 28mm-50mm with pixels to spare. CL image quality is really very nice but there’s no fast wide angle. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted March 8, 2019 Share #11 Posted March 8, 2019 I think that APS-C got undeserved bad press. It is very nice. I even discovered that T 16MP images are very lovely. By the way Leica is telling us that 16MP and APS-C is actually more than adequate, by advocating for 50mm Q2 crop. Which is smaller than APS-C size sensor and only 14MP. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgdinamo Posted March 8, 2019 Share #12 Posted March 8, 2019 9 minutes ago, nicci78 said: I think that APS-C got undeserved bad press. It is very nice. I even discovered that T 16MP images are very lovely. By the way Leica is telling us that 16MP and APS-C is actually more than adequate, by advocating for 50mm Q2 crop. Which is smaller than APS-C size sensor and only 14MP. I find that most people (including some very talented photographers I admire) agree with you about APS-C and say it's more than good enogh for most purposes. I actually had Canon APS-C DSLR's at one time but hated it - switched back to FF very quickly. Then I looked at the APS-C format again when I was thinking about the CL - but after looking at many CL and Q images in dedicated threads on this forum I much prefered the Q images. I can't tell exactly why that was the case but it was not even close for me - may be that I like the 28mm more than other focal length, or maybe I just happened to like the photographers styles/talent in the Q thread more - not sure (but it had nothing to do with number of pixels because I actually prefered the Q images even over most of the M images I have seen posted as well). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEyesHaveIt Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share #13 Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) I too have generally preferred the Q images to the CL (which are very nice as well). Q2 feels like a great travel camera given the 35/50 usability now. Would be smaller and lighter than a CL kit (say 18-56 plus 23). Cheaper too. Edited March 8, 2019 by TheEyesHaveIt Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 8, 2019 Share #14 Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) very recently bought the CL to go with my beloved Q, and still very tentatively figuring it out, as I've been using manual focusing lenses with it until today (got the 18-56on ebay). Apples and oranges on the technical issues, as Nici78 lists. My initial thought was that the Q's IQ is "superior." How can it not be, given the larger sensor size and the dedicated, corrected lens? But aren't we in real danger of embracing a certain developing aesthetic of digitized photos based on evolving technology? Different lenses and different film stock use to give different "looks." Folks used to debate those differences and go from one to another, trying new film stock and swapping lenses of the same focal lengths just because they have different characteristics. But with digital, the differences are narrowing dramatically, as lens resolution, sensor size (and therefore noise, dynamic range, etc), and post-processing can create just about any look you want. It used to be a latitudinal debate (technology developed slowly, and it was about widening your knowledge of what fit your current artistic vision); now it is a longitudinal debate (swapping yesterday's technology for tomorrow's). Technical perfection is competing with artistic vision like never before. I'm looking right now at my CL and am really excited to own it! I really admire that it is a homage to the M3a. And it just feels so natural to hold--far more natural, in fact, than the more boxy Q. By the way, Jono Slack just bought the CL, as did the 3 elephants and a blind man guy--though Jono told me he's lusting for the Q2--as am I! So, I'm not trying to throw shade on the Q. Edited March 8, 2019 by bags27 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted March 8, 2019 Share #15 Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) FF versus crop frame. No contest IMHO, but depends on your use.. Edited March 8, 2019 by algrove Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted March 8, 2019 Share #16 Posted March 8, 2019 (edited) Could you not say that with a CL, assuming not being a specialist, you would need a second fast lens besides the kit zoom. And now its getting difficult. When to change from kit zoom lens to the fast 24mm or even better 35mm (APS-C)? At the end you are better off with the Q2. You have one body plus lens for lanscape, travel plus inside for family etc. Yes I think of someone who would need something better than the iPhone . . . 🥁 Edited March 8, 2019 by Alex U. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 8, 2019 Share #17 Posted March 8, 2019 35 minutes ago, algrove said: FF versus crop frame. No contest IMHO, but depends on your use.. This remark is so 2009.... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 8, 2019 Share #18 Posted March 8, 2019 I thought full frame was full plate 6.5 x 8.5 inches. Why would anyone use anything smaller? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 8, 2019 Share #19 Posted March 8, 2019 I have the family: TL2-CL-SL and a mix of lenses. Currently using the Apo-Summicron-SL 90 on the CL, with gorgeous results: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279062-leica-cl-the-image-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3696651 https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279062-leica-cl-the-image-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3696657 I couldn't do that with a Q2. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 9, 2019 Share #20 Posted March 9, 2019 1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said: I have the family: TL2-CL-SL and a mix of lenses. Currently using the Apo-Summicron-SL 90 on the CL, with gorgeous results: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279062-leica-cl-the-image-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3696651 https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279062-leica-cl-the-image-thread/?do=findComment&comment=3696657 I couldn't do that with a Q2. those are terrific captures; the first one is absurdly great. as good as any I've seen from the SL. thanks. 1 1 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.