Learner Posted March 26, 2019 Share #1 Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Besides availability, being time-tested, and being 1000 USD cheaper, does the Leica Q have any advantage over the Q2? Edited March 26, 2019 by Learner Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 Hi Learner, Take a look here Advantages of the Leica Q over the Leica Q2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dancook Posted March 26, 2019 Share #2 Posted March 26, 2019 Smaller files, so more to a card and less demanding for computer when processing. an accompanying advantage for that price difference is that you still get arguably near as the same great quality images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share #3 Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) Thank you Dan. I suppose an allied question is how does one keep file size down? >>> Take no / less DNGs? Take only jpegs? Crop in-camera? I'm confused when I read that the Q2 takes a full DNG automatically? Many would argue, I suppose, that not capitalizing on the Q2's 47 full-frame sensor is counter-productive. Edited March 26, 2019 by Learner Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritualized67 Posted March 26, 2019 Share #4 Posted March 26, 2019 The Q has better low light capability at higher ISOs. Noise is the same for both at lower/base ISO, dynamic range is better on the Q2 at lower/base ISO - although the Q could have an advantage starting between ISO 200-400, and especially above ISO 400 - including shadow recovery (reference: Photons to Photos Sensor Testing - Bill Claff). The files are much more manageable with the Q. Back button focus is available with the Q, but not on the Q2 (yet). Although Q2 files look beautiful and the sensor is newer, Q pixels are larger (and less densely packed on the same size sensor) - which in general (all things being equal) results in a higher quality image and lower noise. Q2 clearly has more resolution. For low-light usage, I contend that the Q is indeed better, unless you down-sample Q2 files to an equivalent size. Both cameras produce comparable output aesthetically, although for the moment - I still prefer the way the Q visually renders, which appears more organically film-like to my eyes. As more samples come out, I will confirm this - but the noise is clearly higher on the Q2 at higher ISOs based on what I'm seeing. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share #5 Posted March 26, 2019 Thank you "Spiritualized 67"... Learner 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritualized67 Posted March 26, 2019 Share #6 Posted March 26, 2019 Learner - if you shoot in RAW, you'll get uncompressed lossless DNG files that are about 88MB each. Using the crop modes in camera is more of a compositional aid, because the files still are full-sized DNGs. They just open up in Lightroom cropped to the field of view that you selected when taking the pix. So if you shot using 35mm, your files will be 30MP instead of 47. You can do the same crop in editing. At 88MB each, you can use DNG compression to reduce file size (which is another step added to your workflow), and certainly shooting JPEG only will reduce file size. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share #7 Posted March 26, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you again Spiritualized... Learner. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimo Posted March 26, 2019 Share #8 Posted March 26, 2019 The only reason i want the Q2 over the Q is because the weather sealing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Milner Posted March 26, 2019 Share #9 Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) You could run a pre-process step to compress the DNGs prior to ingestion. It would be a bit of a ball ache and take a fair amount of time but you’d end up with the same quality files that were quite a bit smaller than SOOC. Edited March 26, 2019 by Nick Milner Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted March 26, 2019 Author Share #10 Posted March 26, 2019 Thank you Nick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted March 26, 2019 Share #11 Posted March 26, 2019 I reduce DNG file size inside LR once I’ve imported the images and eliminated any rejects. LR Classic. I don’t know if this works in CC. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295601-advantages-of-the-leica-q-over-the-leica-q2/?do=findComment&comment=3710122'>More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 26, 2019 Share #12 Posted March 26, 2019 I'm a broken record, but I prefer the IQ of the Q Classic (phrase copyright, bags 27). That will change eventually. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted March 26, 2019 Share #13 Posted March 26, 2019 2 hours ago, bags27 said: I'm a broken record, but I prefer the IQ of the Q Classic (phrase copyright, bags 27). That will change eventually. I hope to help sway you to the dark (Q2) side once I get my Q2. 🤣 I have said numerous times that I’m not disappointed with my Q. It takes beautiful photos. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 27, 2019 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2019 4 hours ago, Spiritualized67 said: The Q has better low light capability at higher ISOs. <snip> 1 It is my understanding that Q has less noise at higher ISO unless we match the dimensions in which case Q2 has better files. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritualized67 Posted March 27, 2019 Share #15 Posted March 27, 2019 Yes I think I mentioned that if you down sample Q2 files to an equivalent size, noise is not as prounounced. But that sort of defeats the whole premise of working with a higher resolution file that meets and/or exceeds the capabilities of its predecessor right out of the box. Like everything else in photography, it’s often an exercise in compromises. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 27, 2019 Share #16 Posted March 27, 2019 20 minutes ago, Spiritualized67 said: Yes I think I mentioned that if you down sample Q2 files to an equivalent size, noise is not as prounounced. But that sort of defeats the whole premise of working with a higher resolution file that meets and/or exceeds the capabilities of its predecessor right out of the box. Like everything else in photography, it’s often an exercise in compromises. The question is what is the final 'product' of your raw file? If it is something with the same dimensions (print, internet), then you should look at the matched sizes, I think. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted March 27, 2019 Author Share #17 Posted March 27, 2019 Thank you everybody for this discussion... Learner Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted March 27, 2019 Share #18 Posted March 27, 2019 A LNIB Q is going for under 3K USD now. Price diff is really 2K or more. Also consider that buying a used Q “package” may come with lots of extras... batteries, Thumb grip, case etc. It makes the Q vs Q2 choice a bit harder if you don’t need 47mp. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky1981 Posted March 27, 2019 Share #19 Posted March 27, 2019 On the flip-side with high ISOs, the Q2 doesn't suffer from banding which was a real pain point for me with the Q (that and the lack of weather-sealing were the reasons I sold mine). In terms of MP I'd prefer 24MP and better ISO over 47PM but everything else about the Q2 wins out for me aside from the hit to the credit card. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritualized67 Posted March 27, 2019 Share #20 Posted March 27, 2019 1 hour ago, SrMi said: The question is what is the final 'product' of your raw file? If it is something with the same dimensions (print, internet), then you should look at the matched sizes, I think. Agreed and all good points - but it then bekons the question as to why you would need 47MP in the first place (unless you are a very heavy cropper of course) 😊 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.