Advantages of the Leica Q over the Leica Q2?

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Digital of all sorts is very different from film, of course, and lenses designed for digital resolves differently from those designed in the days of film only. Still, illuminating to the discussion is this description of the (in)famous (depending on one's view) version 3 of the greatest lens ever made: Summicron 50mm.

It’s not a lens that bashes you over the head with how good it is. It doesn’t punch you in the face with contrast, slice your eyes open with its sharpness, or leave you hypnotized Cameron Frye-style by its resolution. It instead offers the perfect mixture of all these attributes, resulting in images which have a depth and subtlety most lens manufacturers can only dream of coaxing from their glass.

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2017/11/15/leica-summicron-v3-50mm-f2-lens-review/

This was for most lovers of photography the ideal aesthetic of IQ. We are gradually getting used to a different aesthetic ideal.

[Leica Guy]

9 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Digital of all sorts is very different from film, of course, and lenses designed for digital resolves differently from those designed in the days of film only. Still, illuminating to the discussion is this description of the (in)famous (depending on one's view) version 3 of the greatest lens ever made: Summicron 50mm.

It’s not a lens that bashes you over the head with how good it is. It doesn’t punch you in the face with contrast, slice your eyes open with its sharpness, or leave you hypnotized Cameron Frye-style by its resolution. It instead offers the perfect mixture of all these attributes, resulting in images which have a depth and subtlety most lens manufacturers can only dream of coaxing from their glass.

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2017/11/15/leica-summicron-v3-50mm-f2-lens-review/

This was for most lovers of photography the ideal aesthetic of IQ. We are gradually getting used to a different aesthetic ideal.

Very interesting article and enlightening to this only recent Leica convert. Thanks. 

[SrMi]

18 minutes ago, Spiritualized67 said:

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) 😊  

That is a valid question. I think 24Mp is plenty enough unless you print very large.

However, if you rely on 35 mm and 50 mm crop, then Q's 24Mp is probably not enough. Also, if you are shooting at ISO 100-400, the quality of non-resized  Q2's raw files match the Q's raws. If you use ISO 800 or more, then you have slightly better Q2 images if you resize to 24Mp. I would say that qualitywise there is no loss when compared to Q.

IMO, the only disadvantages of Q2 are the larger files and firmware that is not yet mature.  I do not mind the file size, and I expect Leica to fix the issues everybody is complaining about in this forum.

 

[Mr.Q]

So far, none in terms of hardware. The improvements are great, making the Q2 feel more robust and superior in all aspects.

IQ is pretty much the same when viewed at the same size. Same with high ISO noise in practical use. Both cameras produce spectacular results, with the Q2 having the flexibilty of printing large or cropping heavily.

I'm glad I upgraded. Leica has hit a homerun with the Q2. The Q1 still remains relevant, but once you go big there's no turning back 😆

[Nick Milner]

8 hours ago, bags27 said:

Digital of all sorts is very different from film, of course, and lenses designed for digital resolves differently from those designed in the days of film only. Still, illuminating to the discussion is this description of the (in)famous (depending on one's view) version 3 of the greatest lens ever made: Summicron 50mm.

It’s not a lens that bashes you over the head with how good it is. It doesn’t punch you in the face with contrast, slice your eyes open with its sharpness, or leave you hypnotized Cameron Frye-style by its resolution. It instead offers the perfect mixture of all these attributes, resulting in images which have a depth and subtlety most lens manufacturers can only dream of coaxing from their glass.

https://www.casualphotophile.com/2017/11/15/leica-summicron-v3-50mm-f2-lens-review/

This was for most lovers of photography the ideal aesthetic of IQ. We are gradually getting used to a different aesthetic ideal.

I have this very lens on the front of my M6. Love it.  This was taken on Acros 100 and is untouched. (Sorry for going off topic!)

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!

[M11 for me]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb iQ2:

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!

I just see your post. What does this do? I just tried with an M10 file and this action reduces that file size as well. What does it really do and is this reversible?

[Leica Guy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, M10 for me said:

I just see your post. What does this do? I just tried with an M10 file and this action reduces that file size as well. What does it really do and is this reversible?

Everything I’ve read says this is a lossless compression similar to what some cameras do internally. There is no change to image quality. I’m not aware of any way to reverse this. The file sizes are so large on the Q2 that makes this seem like a good move to me. It works on any non-compressed DNG file as you found out from your M-10. 

[bags27]

1 hour ago, Nick Milner said:

I have this very lens on the front of my M6. Love it.  This was taken on Acros 100 and is untouched. (Sorry for going off topic!)

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!

That's a terrific photo. Thanks! I wonder about reaction if it were posted on a digital photography thread as produced by a digital camera. We live in the sugar-high world of digitization, and it's not much fun to have to eat our vegetables.

[Spiritualized67]

9 hours ago, bags27 said:

It’s not a lens that bashes you over the head with how good it is. It doesn’t punch you in the face with contrast, slice your eyes open with its sharpness, or leave you hypnotized Cameron-Frye Style by its resolution. It instead offers the perfect mixture of all these attributes, resulting in images which have a depth and subtlety most lens manufacturers can only dream of coaxing from their glass.

This was for most lovers of photography the ideal aesthetic of IQ. We are gradually getting used to a different aesthetic ideal.

I love this quote. For me, it beautifully speaks to the intangible nature of image quality...the things that can't be measured in MTF charts and sensor ratings.  There have been many articles written about the unique rendering of the Leica M9. It only had 18MP and it's certainly not the most advanced M these days.  But it has become a cult camera in many circles, and I'd argue that the Q will eventually follow a similar path (if it hasn't already cemented this legendary status). Leica brilliantly matched the lens to the 24MP sensor - larger pixels and all, and the results speak for themselves.  As time goes on, I think we'll see that the Q2 has a different aesthetic possibly, especially when couched in the context of "subtlety" as the quote above noted.

[bags27]

12 minutes ago, Spiritualized67 said:

I love this quote. For me, it beautifully speaks to the intangible nature of image quality...the things that can't be measured in MTF charts and sensor ratings.  There have been many articles written about the unique rendering of the Leica M9. It only had 18MP and it's certainly not the most advanced M these days.  But it has become a cult camera in many circles, and I'd argue that the Q will eventually follow a similar path (if it hasn't already cemented this legendary status). Leica brilliantly matched the lens to the 24MP sensor - larger pixels and all, and the results speak for themselves.  As time goes on, I think we'll see that the Q2 has a different aesthetic possibly, especially when couched in the context of "subtlety" as the quote above noted.

Yes, I've heard the same about the M9. Also the Nikon Df which still maintains resale value even if its technology is "outdated." A lot of us were hoping in vain that the Z would reflect both the UI and aesthetics of that camera. But, despite having some champions within Nikon, there are no plans to refresh the Df (at least that's the perception), so I'm watching ebay.....

[Leica Guy]

If the Q2 does indeed have noticeably less banding in shadows, that’s a plus. So far I’ve read thats the case. 

[Learner]

I found this article re why the writer won't be getting the Q2:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/2/1/my-views-on-the-leica-q2-and-why-i-wont-be-getting-it

I wonder whether the Q2 would have as great / greater appeal if it had a smaller sensor?

Your thoughts?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Learner

[Spiritualized67]

1 hour ago, iQ2 said:

If the Q2 does indeed have noticeably less banding in shadows, that’s a plus. So far I’ve read thats the case. 

I haven't noticed that banding is an issue in my Q-P, so I wonder if some of the latest firmware enhancements didn't help mitigate this? For sure, the Q2 has about a stop or so more dynamic range/shadow recovery at the lower end. 

[SrMi]

54 minutes ago, Learner said:

I found this article re why the writer won't be getting the Q2:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/2/1/my-views-on-the-leica-q2-and-why-i-wont-be-getting-it

I wonder whether the Q2 would have as great / greater appeal if it had a smaller sensor?

Your thoughts?

I think that a Q2 with a smaller sensor would have less appeal. There are already Leica D-Lux 7 as well as Leica CL/TL2.

Horatio Tan's article has some valid observations, but note that he doesn't own a Leica Q either and is moving from Leica's to Canon RF system. BTW, I think that 35mm "digital zoom" corresponds to 1.25x and not to 1.5x (APS-C) crop as he writes.

[Nick Milner]

1 hour ago, Learner said:

I found this article re why the writer won't be getting the Q2:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/2/1/my-views-on-the-leica-q2-and-why-i-wont-be-getting-it

I wonder whether the Q2 would have as great / greater appeal if it had a smaller sensor?

Your thoughts?

Wait til he finds out the DNG file sizes aren't any smaller after cropping.  

Seriously, if his concern is whether the extra MP can add anything when the final result is still mainly screen ("how does more resolution and newer features really help one take better photos typically intended for screen use?") well, one answer is that downscaling improves image quality. The old Q has slightly cleaner images at higher ISOs but once you've downscaled a Q2 image to the same output size you end up with a slightly cleaner image than the Q. I think you're getting excellent images with either though.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, Spiritualized67 said:

I haven't noticed that banding is an issue in my Q-P, so I wonder if some of the latest firmware enhancements didn't help mitigate this? For sure, the Q2 has about a stop or so more dynamic range/shadow recovery at the lower end. 

Yes, the banding issue was fixed in a firmware update a while back, after which I had zero banding on Q Titanium and of course Q-P. Some people never update their firmware I guess

[Spiritualized67]

28 minutes ago, Nick Milner said:

Wait til he finds out the DNG file sizes aren't any smaller after cropping.  

Seriously, if his concern is whether the extra MP can add anything when the final result is still mainly screen ("how does more resolution and newer features really help one take better photos typically intended for screen use?") well, one answer is that downscaling improves image quality. The old Q has slightly cleaner images at higher ISOs but once you've downscaled a Q2 image to the same output size you end up with a slightly cleaner image than the Q. I think you're getting excellent images with either though.

Nick you bring up a very good point - which is final usage. For those who don't print, 47MP is sort of overkill. I'm a bit old school in the cropping area. If you're going to buy a fixed 28mm, you should learn to crop with your feet or ideally compose to bring out the best this wide vantage point has to offer.

Don't get me wrong, the extra resolution and crop modes on the Q2 are a great compositional aid, especially for those who are going to use the crop lines to anticipate the decisive moment as a subject walks into or out of the frame.  And yes, its is true that down sampling cleans up the Q2 files.  But I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't want to have to start adding in additional workflow steps to achieve the same thing I'm already getting in the Q (whether DNG conversion or re-sizing). 

Down sampling can help Q2 noise, but I'm not so sure about dynamic range and shadow recovery? According to Photons to Photos sensor tests, the Q bests the Q2 in these areas at higher ISOs as well, although the Q2 is clearly winning the DR battle at the lower end.  But for sure, a resounding yes that both deliver excellent images - and even those of us who are sticking with our beloved Qs understand that it really comes down to personal preference. 

[SrMi]

30 minutes ago, Spiritualized67 said:

Nick you bring up a very good point - which is final usage. For those who don't print, 47MP is sort of overkill. I'm a bit old school in the cropping area. If you're going to buy a fixed 28mm, you should learn to crop with your feet or ideally compose to bring out the best this wide vantage point has to offer.

Don't get me wrong, the extra resolution and crop modes on the Q2 are a great compositional aid, especially for those who are going to use the crop lines to anticipate the decisive moment as a subject walks into or out of the frame.  And yes, its is true that down sampling cleans up the Q2 files.  But I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't want to have to start adding in additional workflow steps to achieve the same thing I'm already getting in the Q (whether DNG conversion or re-sizing). 

Down sampling can help Q2 noise, but I'm not so sure about dynamic range and shadow recovery? According to Photons to Photos sensor tests, the Q bests the Q2 in these areas at higher ISOs as well, although the Q2 is clearly winning the DR battle at the lower end.  But for sure, a resounding yes that both deliver excellent images - and even those of us who are sticking with our beloved Qs understand that it really comes down to personal preference. 

4

 

"Old school" did cropping quite a bit. See Arnold Newman's Picasso or Igor Strawinsky portraits. Robert Frank, Walker Evans did crop. Even Cartier Bresson did crop occasionally. I think it is a personal decision, to crop or not to crop, but I would not call it old school.

I do not think anyone suggested adding an extra step to resize images to get the same or better quality as Q. Instead, when you print or export the photograph for the web, the resizing step is included in the operation.

I agree very much on "a resounding yes that both deliver excellent images".

 

[Spiritualized67]

4 minutes ago, SrMi said:

 

"Old school" did cropping quite a bit. See Arnold Newman's Picasso or Igor Strawinsky portraits. Robert Frank, Walker Evans did crop. Even Cartier Bresson did crop occasionally. I think it is a personal decision, to crop or not to crop, but I would not call it old school.

I do not think anyone suggested adding an extra step to resize images to get the same or better quality as Q. Instead, when you print or export the photograph for the web, the resizing step is included in the operation.

I agree very much on "a resounding yes that both deliver excellent images".

 

Yes, thank you for that reminder - even Robert Frank's contact sheets in "The Americans" validates your point - a favorite photographer of mine. Maybe old school was a poor choice of words - and I do agree that cropping is a personal decision. Not sure what to call this, but I sort of feel like too many photographers have become over-reliant on the technology these days and not enough on the "foundational" skills that underlie good photography.

Extra megapixels shouldn't be a replacement for good composition and framing--although it's good to know that the resolution is there if you need it. Focus advancements like Eye-AF shouldn't be a replacement for a good understanding of concepts like depth of field or an understanding of the minimum handheld shutter speed you'll need to produce sharp results. And don't even get me started on all those creative editing filters like "fake fog or fake sun bursts" that add moody effects to photos that weren't originally there to begin with. My answer to that is...learn the weather or learn how to stop down LOL.  And while cropping will always be a personal decision, I generally have more respect for photographers who understand composition and technology enough to be able to produce consistent results with intent, rather than just happy accidents after the fact.  So maybe a traditional view is a better way of saying it. Cropping can be our friend for sure! But cropping shouldn't be a replacement for sound design and compositional understanding. 

As for the extra step, I was mostly referring to the DNG conversion some may opt to do to manage the 88MB files, although in all fairness to noise, there is a lot to be said about seeing a noise free screen image right out of the cam.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Sulis]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Yes, the banding issue was fixed in a firmware update a while back, after which I had zero banding on Q Titanium and of course Q-P. Some people never update their firmware I guess

Uh, no it wasn’t. Not if you try low light shots with a brightish light in it.