Aesthetic image differences between Q and Q2?

[Leica Guy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, Spiritualized67 said:

IQ2 I agree, especially with dynamic range. As for noise, it’s sort of like the camera equivalent to bad gas mileage in a car. It’s 2019 and cars are still getting 20-25 mpg lol. Really??? 

I for one appreciate the sensor advancements in the Q2, but not at the detriment of noise, especially given the Qs popularity amongst street shooters, whereby ISO 400+ is the norm.  Noise unfortunately was the sacrificial Lamb in order to get everything to work at 47MP. Files still look beautiful, especially at the lower end. 

AF and face/eye tracking continues to make positive strides, and Sony is doing great in this area - so we’re still improving in this capability. Leica AF is snappy. 

Larger resolution and weather sealing aside, the rendering in the Q is gorgeous, and I’m not quite convinced yet that the Q2 files look better. For me, this is where the rubber meets the road. They are larger. Noise is worse. 

With incremental changes happening in every model, it really comes down to finding the lens/camera/feature-set combo that gives you the look you like and the functionality you crave. As much as I want to get the Q2, my gut is telling my to stay the course, especially when I see how beautiful the Q files look. It’s sort of like messing with a perfect recipe. Too much sugar (or sharpness LOL) changes the balance. 

If I were happy to stay with the Q, I’d buy me a barely used Q-P and not look back. Its a beautiful camera and would by definition be recently built. 

I have some anxiety about the Q2 as far as noise, dynamic range, subtle ergonomics like the thumbwheel being further to the right. I think I’ll like the three button interface on the rear. I’m somewhat optimistic that the images might be slightly better than the Q when converted to monochrome. I like the additional resolution to allow cropping although I know I need to move to zoom. I like the battery and the faster UHS-II card slot. Of course I like the weather sealing. It looks like a great camera that I can enjoy for many, many years. I certainly don’t need any more pixels. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by iQ2

[Spiritualized67]

Haha trust me, I’m still on the fence about upgrading in some respects. 

[yura]

I can definitely say:

the original Leica Q (QP) is better in terms of Aesthetic than Q2!

I have spent a lot of time comparing. Because wanted to buy one. 
the prices are almost same for used Q2 and mint Q-P for now. 
so I borrowed Q and Q 2 from my friends and did a lot of job comparing. 
 

better weather resistance and battery from Q2 versus my favorite “filmic slide” images from Q? 
 

aaaaaand the winner is ORIGINAL Q. I bought QP and very happy. 
 

Q2 is much much worse in terms of colors and aesthetics overall of the image. Shooting RAW I can do much with any image from any camera. But! With leica m9 or Q it takes 3 seconds to make WOW image. But in case of Q2 it takes a lot more. 
In case of Sony it takes a looot of time to get a good image))))) 

So. I can say (IMHO) Original Q (QP) is much much better. It has looks like Slide Film images. Awesome!!! 
 

If you love leica m9 with kodak almost filmic images just from the box. So you can define what is an aesthetic images. Go with original Q with no doubts. 
 

[SirBlunder]

8 hours ago, yura said:

I can definitely say:

the original Leica Q (QP) is better in terms of Aesthetic than Q2!

I have spent a lot of time comparing. Because wanted to buy one. 
the prices are almost same for used Q2 and mint Q-P for now. 
so I borrowed Q and Q 2 from my friends and did a lot of job comparing. 
 

better weather resistance and battery from Q2 versus my favorite “filmic slide” images from Q? 
 

aaaaaand the winner is ORIGINAL Q. I bought QP and very happy. 
 

Q2 is much much worse in terms of colors and aesthetics overall of the image. Shooting RAW I can do much with any image from any camera. But! With leica m9 or Q it takes 3 seconds to make WOW image. But in case of Q2 it takes a lot more. 
In case of Sony it takes a looot of time to get a good image))))) 

So. I can say (IMHO) Original Q (QP) is much much better. It has looks like Slide Film images. Awesome!!! 
 

If you love leica m9 with kodak almost filmic images just from the box. So you can define what is an aesthetic images. Go with original Q with no doubts. 
 

Love when an old thread gets revived. Hadn't seen this one.

I toiled with getting a Q-P vs. Q2. Ultimately went with the Q2 for weather sealing, EVF improvements, higher resolution, and better battery life. And have loved my experience so far (the last year or so after switching from the Sony system). 

Not looking back. Again, happy with my Q2, and plan to use it for many years to come. It's everything I want in a camera (although it certainly took a lot of adjusting coming from Sony). 

[Jayk]

I agree, it's good to see an old thread revived. I sold my Q1 and replaced it with a Nikon Z7 mainly for versatility. Just got the new pancake lens and can't help wondering whether this setup is an unintended homage to the Q. I loved the way it handled and the images confirmed there is something really special about the Q. I hope to return to a Q at some point in the future...

[profus]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:51 PM, yura said:

I can definitely say:

the original Leica Q (QP) is better in terms of Aesthetic than Q2!

I have spent a lot of time comparing. Because wanted to buy one. 
the prices are almost same for used Q2 and mint Q-P for now. 
so I borrowed Q and Q 2 from my friends and did a lot of job comparing. 
 

better weather resistance and battery from Q2 versus my favorite “filmic slide” images from Q? 
 

aaaaaand the winner is ORIGINAL Q. I bought QP and very happy. 
 

Q2 is much much worse in terms of colors and aesthetics overall of the image. Shooting RAW I can do much with any image from any camera. But! With leica m9 or Q it takes 3 seconds to make WOW image. But in case of Q2 it takes a lot more. 
In case of Sony it takes a looot of time to get a good image))))) 

So. I can say (IMHO) Original Q (QP) is much much better. It has looks like Slide Film images. Awesome!!! 
 

If you love leica m9 with kodak almost filmic images just from the box. So you can define what is an aesthetic images. Go with original Q with no doubts. 
 

I would really like to see those examples confirming that QP is much, much better. The thing is that my Q2 produces really great images, so I would really like to see the ones, that are much, much better...

[SirBlunder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, profus said:

I would really like to see those examples confirming that QP is much, much better. The thing is that my Q2 produces really great images, so I would really like to see the ones, that are much, much better...

Seconded. You hear a lot about how the Q files have a different feel (and also a lot of the exact opposite opinion) but I've never seen a good side-by-side done. Just did another search and... still isn't much.

 

This is the best I've found (linked below). Pretty inconclusive IMO. 

https://mrleica.com/leica-q2-review/

Edited March 15, 2023 by SirBlunder

[Einst_Stein]

On 3/15/2023 at 8:23 AM, SirBlunder said:

Seconded. You hear a lot about how the Q files have a different feel (and also a lot of the exact opposite opinion) but I've never seen a good side-by-side done. Just did another search and... still isn't much.

 

This is the best I've found (linked below). Pretty inconclusive IMO. 

https://mrleica.com/leica-q2-review/

I wonder if the screen can play the difference, after all, the best commonly available screen is about 8K x 4K in resolution and limited  dynamic range.

The guy in your link is best in pretty girl portrait. He has his particular interest, not necessary general.       

[newtoleica]

Mr Leica's comparison is pretty useless. Portraits are not what the Q is about and any quality difference between the Q and Q2 will not be visible on the web.. really you need to compare printed output from each... The choice between the two probably lies mostly in handling and the EVF. disclosure - had a Q2 for a few months before getting back into M. Own a Sony RX1RM2 for this role now (size, cheaper and 35mm)

[Tomas Eriksson]

I upgraded from Q to a Q2 earlier this year. Overlapped on ownership and compared images at multiple occuations.

Things I noticed:

1. Autofocus is noticeably better on Q2, not worlds apart but better.
2. Auto white balance is improved on Q2. With the Q it was all over the place when shooting under fluorescent light conditions.
3. High ISO/Noise. Slightly less aesthetically pleasing noise on the Q2 but the Q2 have more detail still. So end of the day I see improvement in my low light street photography.
4. Battery life is so much better, with my Q I almost never left home without the spare batteries but with the Q2 I rarely bother.
5. I have to mention it..., days are gone when I accidentally set the camera to continuous shooting and get crippled waiting for the camera to write numerous images to the SD-card.
6. Color rendition besides white balance... There are some subtle differences but in a blind test I wouldn't be able to tell if it's a Q vs Q2 image if both are scaled to same size. Both look amazing to me.

Q is still a great camera but Q2 is superior. 

[SirBlunder]

12 hours ago, Tomas Eriksson said:

I upgraded from Q to a Q2 earlier this year. Overlapped on ownership and compared images at multiple occuations.

Things I noticed:

1. Autofocus is noticeably better on Q2, not worlds apart but better.
2. Auto white balance is improved on Q2. With the Q it was all over the place when shooting under fluorescent light conditions.
3. High ISO/Noise. Slightly less aesthetically pleasing noise on the Q2 but the Q2 have more detail still. So end of the day I see improvement in my low light street photography.
4. Battery life is so much better, with my Q I almost never left home without the spare batteries but with the Q2 I rarely bother.
5. I have to mention it..., days are gone when I accidentally set the camera to continuous shooting and get crippled waiting for the camera to write numerous images to the SD-card.
6. Color rendition besides white balance... There are some subtle differences but in a blind test I wouldn't be able to tell if it's a Q vs Q2 image if both are scaled to same size. Both look amazing to me.

Q is still a great camera but Q2 is superior. 

Interesting re: no. 1 -- haven't heard much of that. Don't they share the same processor? Switching from Sony a7iv to q2 about a year ago, I was VERY disappointed with the q2's autofocus. But now that I'm used to it (always in "point" mode, always focus and re-framing), it's honestly fine. Very rarely miss focus when I need to grab it except in low light which can be difficult at times. 

no. 4 -- This was a big one for me. Carrying extra batteries isn't a big deal BUT not having to worry about it (I've NEVER left home with a full battery and even been concerned about running out of juice) is great. That said, I'm not a professional, shooting events, or even shooting for hours and hours at a time. 

no. 5 -- This was another one. I very rarely need to shoot in continuous mode, and when I do, I can swap over in less than 5 seconds. Never felt like I wanted to more quickly/easily switch. 

Plus the weather sealing AND improved EVF are what made the decision easy for me, not to mention, I'm not one to trade up/change gear often, so I figured buying 2016's tech in 2022 didn't make much sense. 

Overall, for me, my experience thus far is probably around a 9/10 with the q2 for my uses. No camera is perfect, but the drawbacks (to me, not many) are well worth the benefits (mainly: superior image quality, portability, ease of use, JOY of use (big one), build quality, etc.) for my uses, i.e. travel/family photos. 

[yura]

Hmmm 

I can’t say that Q2 autofocus is better. 
in many situations the af of Q2 is worse than Q. 
like ISO of Q2 is worse - same with AF. 
compared in real life. 
strange to read here different. 
 

[Daniel C.1975]

@yura: When comparing high-iso of the Q2 and the Q at the same magnification the noise is very similar but the Q2 shows significant more details, so it is better. Comparing at 100% does not work due to the different resolutions. You can easily compare this at dpreview.

[bobtodrick]

3 hours ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

@yura: When comparing high-iso of the Q2 and the Q at the same magnification the noise is very similar but the Q2 shows significant more details, so it is better. Comparing at 100% does not work due to the different resolutions. You can easily compare this at dpreview.

I’ll be the devil’s advocate!

Who cares!!

My first digital ‘Leica’ was a Panasonic L1 with a 14-50 Vario Elmar (7.4mp).

I still regularly sell prints I made with that camera.

Only pixel peepers care…my Q will in all likelihood be my last camera.

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb bobtodrick:

I’ll be the devil’s advocate!

Who cares!!

My first digital ‘Leica’ was a Panasonic L1 with a 14-50 Vario Elmar (7.4mp).

I still regularly sell prints I made with that camera.

Only pixel peepers care…my Q will in all likelihood be my last camera.

Very true spoken - who cares 😄 The IQ of all these cameras is on a very, very high level. I have large Olympus E1 prints here, and they still look georgous. 2005, 5MP Four Thirds Kodak CCD and what we have nowadays is so very much superior. 
 

But as usual: The better is the enemy of the good  … or so 😁