Q2: more reviews

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://luminous-landscape.com/review-leica-q2/

loves, loves, loves it with a few caveats.

[jaapv]

Hmmm... He raises some valid points. It is refreshing that the review does not contain the obligatory sneer about Leica prices.

[TheEyesHaveIt]

Too much focus on video for a camera that is most certainly not meant for that. Also, how can it be a "major disappointment" that the camera doesn't turn on immediately after you drench it with water for 20 minutes straight (but turned on fine after a couple of minutes)? Unrealistic testing methods IMO.

[Leica Guy]

I was more disappointed with how soft the lens is around the outer perimeter when shooting wide open. Since I never noticed this with my Q, I’ll now go and make the same test. I expect it should be sharper stopped down 1-2 stops, but I’m mostly wondering is the new lens design any different optically than the Q. 

[M11 for me]

According to Reid it is the same lens with some minor changes to the outside barrel.

[bags27]

Have to admit, while I usually find him bombastic but informative, in this one he seems just bombastic. One thing I did not know, however, and don't have anywhere near the technical understanding to know is: why, despite the doubling of pixels, the dynamic range remains 13 stops (I believe the A7riii produces 14 stops and because of that I know some users who have left Leica for Sony). I'm way out of my depth here, but I'm disappointed that dynamic range hasn't increased. I would think that, if the lens is pretty much the same and the processor is pretty much the same, increased dynamic range would be the thing that would contribute most to improved image quality (besides the image quality of a significantly cropped photo which is of course improved with increased pixels). Not that the IQ of the Q isn't already fantastic. It's just that normally I would expect that to be the major delta between the original and v. 2.

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by bags27

[TheEyesHaveIt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica site says 14 stops of DR.

[bags27]

Thanks so much. Now, that's the exciting improvement we should expect!

Edit: according to DP Review: Although we haven't yet completed our full testing, the base of ISO 50 appears to be a true 'native' base ISO, which should offer additional dynamic range in Raw mode compared to ISO 100.

Edited March 9, 2019 by bags27

[Mute-on]

Is it realistic to expect the outer zone to be as sharp as the centre wide open when focussed on a curved object, such as a tree canopy?

I’m trying to get a sense of whether the claim of soft edges is legitimate or a question of subject and limited DOF.  Perhaps a flat field subject would be a better illustration of wide open edge-to-edge sharpness. 

[microview]

4 hours ago, bags27 said:

Have to admit, while I usually find him bombastic but informative, in this one he seems just bombastic. One thing I did not know, however, and don't have anywhere near the technical understanding to know is: why, despite the doubling of pixels, the dynamic range remains 13 stops (I believe the A7riii produces 14 stops and because of that I know some users who have left Leica for Sony). I'm way out of my depth here, but I'm disappointed that dynamic range hasn't increased. I would think that, if the lens is pretty much the same and the processor is pretty much the same, increased dynamic range would be the thing that would contribute most to improved image quality (besides the image quality of a significantly cropped photo which is of course improved with increased pixels). Not that the IQ of the Q isn't already fantastic. It's just that normally I would expect that to be the major delta between the original and v. 2.

 

I groaned when I saw that face again – and listened a bit and switched off. David Farkas review was what we wanted and I admired the lady with the perfect teeth. 

[Daedalus2000]

 

[Daedalus2000]