Advantages of the Leica Q over the Leica Q2?

[DIENDI70]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/27/2019 at 8:35 PM, Sulis said:

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

unfortunately I have to confirm that the banding is always there if you heavily recover the shadows...even at low iso...

[hdmesa]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:35 PM, Sulis said:

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

Sounds like you're underexposing or are in an impossibly high contrast lighting situation. I've been doing full +100 Shadows plus several stops of Exposure increase and am not seeing banding.

[hdmesa]

19 hours ago, DIENDI70 said:

unfortunately I have to confirm that the banding is always there if you heavily recover the shadows...even at low iso...

I guess I have the special Non-Banding Edition™ Leica Q

[nicci78]

I never have any noticeable banding issues with my Q in my 51K photos with it  

And I shot happily at 25K ISO with it. 

The Q do not have the M 240 sensor, which is known for its banding issue at 6400 ISO. 

[Marley]

Hi i’m new to this forum. Interested in getting my first Leica. No background in editing or shooting RAW. (Willing to learn to add new skill) would I be better off buying the Q or Q2? Thanks and very informative forum I must say. 

[Leica Guy]

12 hours ago, Marley said:

Hi i’m new to this forum. Interested in getting my first Leica. No background in editing or shooting RAW. (Willing to learn to add new skill) would I be better off buying the Q or Q2? Thanks and very informative forum I must say. 

Welcome to the forum. I suggest you spend a lot of time perusing the forum. There’s a ton of great information about the Q and Q2.

I just received my Q2 and am extremely happy with it so far. The IQ is superb. The new on / off switch is better. Focusing is even faster than the Q, but not by much. The EVF is definitely higher quality, but the Q was okay too. 

I’d buy a Q2 if you can afford it. If not, I’d but a Q-P. You’ll be very happy with either one. 

Good luck. 

[Marley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi! Just went to the store and played with the Q for a few minutes. Its not as light and small As I would’ve expect. Its almost the same as my XT1 with 23mmf1.4 lens.  Feel is definitely more solid. EVF is quite small compared to my fuji. They have q-p as well and wow the matte finish is beautiful. But the price difference is just $550 to the q2! The q is about $1,100 cheaper vs the q2. So for me its a no brainer, if going for new. Q2 is the way to go. 

[hdmesa]

Bumping this semi-recent thread. Q pricing has gone down and the Q2 wait list is months-long.

I had to return my first Q-P due to a bad shutter release (focus and recompose didn't work), but it worked out to my benefit as the Q-P has been reduced substantially in price. My replacement Q-P arrived this week, and I've found no issues with it other than the B&H warehouse somehow discarded the outer white box by accident. I double-triple-checked everything inside, and all was as-new/unwrapped, etc. The finish on this one is miles better than my last copy. This one is much softer/smoother whereas the last one felt a bit like nails on a chalkboard to my fingertips. I guess there has been some variation in the finish texture along the way. Manufacture date is mid-February, so it already had the latest firmware installed.

 

The only reason I would choose a Q2 would be for the weather sealing, but I'd rather have the Q-P finish – plus, I couldn't get a Q2 for months even if I wanted one.

 

I have a GFX 50R, so the large DNG file sizes of the Q2 are not an incentive. I already cringe every time I copy over multiple gigabytes at a time from my GFX's SD card, so the thought of having DNGs from the Q2 at about twice (yes, twice!) the file size of a GFX lossless-compressed RAW is crazy to me. I didn't want to have to batch-compress the DNGs with a Photoshop action every time I downloaded images to my computer, either.

 

The Q/Q-P file IQ is perfect to my eye, and it complements my 50R well as a travel camera and 28mm-equivalent FOV prime (there is no native prime for the GFX at/around this FOV). The Q/Q-P speaks to me the same way my original Canon 5D and the GFX 50R do – fat pixels with tears-of-joy IQ at full view as well as 1:1 magnification.

 

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!

[ramarren]

I was not interested in the Q at all, and remain uninterested in it. The Q2, on the other hand, has piqued my interest due to its high resolution and weather sealing. There seem to be significant improvements to the viewfinder as well, based on what I saw when looking at it in the Leica Store.

As a one-lens, one-body system, I feel the Q2's high mexapixel count is essential to being able to crop for framing. It also does what (IMO) is the right thing: more pixel resolution with wide focal length where you need it, less with longer focal length FOV where it is a bit less important. A 7 mPixel frame at 75mm is perfectly reasonable: I sold a lot of work using that FoV equivalent made with 5 and 6 Mpixel cameras and not a single person ever told me that the photos lacked resolution. 

The weather sealing simply extends the range of environments the Q2 can be used in without taking special precaution. From fine dust to drenching rain, the Q2 should survive and remain reliable. 

Subtle differences in the in-camera JPEG engine's rendering qualities don't mean much to me because I usually lock my cameras to raw capture only and do all my rendering work independent of the manufacturers' notions of what is correct or pleasing. What I've seen of the Q2 sensor (both from my own test frames and from what I've seen on line) is that it is a fine performer. 

Although I'm at about the '80% sure' that I'll buy one when my dealer has a Q2 available for me (yes, I did put in an order request), I continue to bat the idea back and forth between buying the Q2 and buying an Hasselblad X1D. Very different cameras, yes; they separately address different use niches I have in mind. The body price of a refurbished X1D with warranty from Hasselblad is the same as a new price for the Q2; add a mount adapter and I have 12 lenses that go right onto it, and it has both a larger format and the 50mPixel sensor. It's also completely weather sealed if I buy native lenses. I'll figure it out one way or the other soon.

BTW: Every time a new model of an existing camera comes out, there is some fraction of the interested audience that says "Oh, the previous model was more to my liking for X, Y, Z, etc reasons". Generally, within six months, all of those comments have disappeared because whatever the new models foibles might be, 99% of the time the new model has some improvements that mean more than whatever small regressions there might be. I try to take each camera one at a time and evaluate it for itself, not in direct comparison to the previous model or whatever, usually because my buying cycle generally skips over several models between purchases... and because I am not really able to be 100% objective in my evaluation until I've used a camera for several months and several thousand exposures. 

[marchyman]

4 hours ago, ramarren said:

"Oh, the previous model was more to my liking for X, Y, Z, etc reasons". Generally, within six months, all of those comments have disappeared because whatever the new models foibles might be, 99% of the time the new model has some improvements that mean more than whatever small regressions there might be.

True, but I think another reason the comments stop is those who are not going to switch stop talking about it.

[hdmesa]

On 5/31/2019 at 9:51 AM, ramarren said:

I was not interested in the Q at all, and remain uninterested in it. The Q2, on the other hand, has piqued my interest due to its high resolution and weather sealing. There seem to be significant improvements to the viewfinder as well, based on what I saw when looking at it in the Leica Store.

As a one-lens, one-body system, I feel the Q2's high mexapixel count is essential to being able to crop for framing. It also does what (IMO) is the right thing: more pixel resolution with wide focal length where you need it, less with longer focal length FOV where it is a bit less important. A 7 mPixel frame at 75mm is perfectly reasonable: I sold a lot of work using that FoV equivalent made with 5 and 6 Mpixel cameras and not a single person ever told me that the photos lacked resolution. 

The weather sealing simply extends the range of environments the Q2 can be used in without taking special precaution. From fine dust to drenching rain, the Q2 should survive and remain reliable. 

Subtle differences in the in-camera JPEG engine's rendering qualities don't mean much to me because I usually lock my cameras to raw capture only and do all my rendering work independent of the manufacturers' notions of what is correct or pleasing. What I've seen of the Q2 sensor (both from my own test frames and from what I've seen on line) is that it is a fine performer. 

Although I'm at about the '80% sure' that I'll buy one when my dealer has a Q2 available for me (yes, I did put in an order request), I continue to bat the idea back and forth between buying the Q2 and buying an Hasselblad X1D. Very different cameras, yes; they separately address different use niches I have in mind. The body price of a refurbished X1D with warranty from Hasselblad is the same as a new price for the Q2; add a mount adapter and I have 12 lenses that go right onto it, and it has both a larger format and the 50mPixel sensor. It's also completely weather sealed if I buy native lenses. I'll figure it out one way or the other soon.

BTW: Every time a new model of an existing camera comes out, there is some fraction of the interested audience that says "Oh, the previous model was more to my liking for X, Y, Z, etc reasons". Generally, within six months, all of those comments have disappeared because whatever the new models foibles might be, 99% of the time the new model has some improvements that mean more than whatever small regressions there might be. I try to take each camera one at a time and evaluate it for itself, not in direct comparison to the previous model or whatever, usually because my buying cycle generally skips over several models between purchases... and because I am not really able to be 100% objective in my evaluation until I've used a camera for several months and several thousand exposures. 

Valid points that still ring hollow given you can't get a new Q2 order fulfilled for about 8 months or so according to a few reports here. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my Q-P.

 

I wasn't saying the Q is better than the Q2, only laying out my reasoning for choosing it. Q DNG files are already as large as my GFX 50R 50mp lossless compressed RAF RAWs. 88-ish megabyte RAW files for a 47.3mp sensor is insane. That's what the GFX 100 is producing with lossless compression. If you have the space (and space is cheap), then it's no problem I suppose. Me on the other hand, I have a 1.5TB laptop drive that I don't want to fill up and/or have to use an attached hard drive. That and I've had enough of dense-pixel sensors after the 5DsR. 24-ish mp for 135-format and 50mp for 44x33 medium format is where I want to be. YMMV as they say. I'm putting this out here not to convince anyone that the Q is better or Q2 is not a big step up – it is – only trying to show it's not unreasonable to choose a Q over a Q2.

[ramarren]

8 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Valid points that still ring hollow given you can't get a new Q2 order fulfilled for about 8 months or so according to a few reports here. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying my Q-P.

 

I wasn't saying the Q is better than the Q2, only laying out my reasoning for choosing it. Q DNG files are already as large as my GFX 50R 50mp lossless compressed RAF RAWs. 88-ish megabyte RAW files for a 47.3mp sensor is insane. That's what the GFX 100 is producing with lossless compression. If you have the space (and space is cheap), then it's no problem I suppose. Me on the other hand, I have a 1.5TB laptop drive that I don't want to fill up and/or have to use an attached hard drive. That and I've had enough of dense-pixel sensors after the 5DsR. 24-ish mp for 135-format and 50mp for 44x33 medium format is where I want to be. YMMV as they say. I'm putting this out here not to convince anyone that the Q is better or Q2 is not a big step up – it is – only trying to show it's not unreasonable to choose a Q over a Q2.

Obviously, some people have gotten theirs already. The dealers have some stock in house now that is already sold. The fact is that the Q2 has been far more successful than Leica expected so they cannot fulfill the demand quickly enough just yet. Why does that make the "valid points ... ring hollow"? 

It's not unreasonable to pick anything you want, ultimately. The Q is a fine camera for those whose needs are fulfilled by it. The Q2 would be my pick if both were on the table in front of me, and much of that is because I already have other cameras of equal quality that do what the Q would do easily. If I am going to buy a camera in the Q line, I want the one that has something more to offer. If I decide to go with a Hasselblad X1D instead, well, that's my money spent to fulfill my desires better ... I hope.

Yes, space is cheap ... very cheap nowadays. I just upgraded my backup archive and working hard drive set from 3T to 6T drives (three drives...). Cost me less than a half case for my Leica M-P, and I get FAR more use out of it. I also just bought a 1T SSD and mobile file hub for travel backup and storage of the excess for less than $110 ... I certainly do not worry about space at this point in time.

[hdmesa]

On 6/1/2019 at 6:47 PM, ramarren said:

Obviously, some people have gotten theirs already. The dealers have some stock in house now that is already sold. The fact is that the Q2 has been far more successful than Leica expected so they cannot fulfill the demand quickly enough just yet. Why does that make the "valid points ... ring hollow"? 

It's not unreasonable to pick anything you want, ultimately. The Q is a fine camera for those whose needs are fulfilled by it. The Q2 would be my pick if both were on the table in front of me, and much of that is because I already have other cameras of equal quality that do what the Q would do easily. If I am going to buy a camera in the Q line, I want the one that has something more to offer. If I decide to go with a Hasselblad X1D instead, well, that's my money spent to fulfill my desires better ... I hope.

Yes, space is cheap ... very cheap nowadays. I just upgraded my backup archive and working hard drive set from 3T to 6T drives (three drives...). Cost me less than a half case for my Leica M-P, and I get FAR more use out of it. I also just bought a 1T SSD and mobile file hub for travel backup and storage of the excess for less than $110 ... I certainly do not worry about space at this point in time.

Same thing happened with the Q when it was launched – back-ordered semi-indefinitely if you didn't order close to launch day. If both where on the table in front of me as you say, I'd have to handle both to decide. I'd be looking to see if the added weight of the Q2 was a big deal or a non-issue; I'd want to see if the rendering at f/1.7 @ MFD was the same, etc. (new sensor = new film). Stuff like that. High res with uncompressed DNG is a downside for me of the Q2. I would have also have preferred to have seen SL-level weather resistance. The note from Leica that the Q2 weather-resistance degrades over time does not inspire confidence.

If you want the camera that has the "most to offer", buying the X1D now might be premature. The next version, due to be announced any time now, will likely have weather resistance and the 100mp BSI sensor. If not putting your money into the previous model Q concerned you, not sure it makes sense to do that exact same thing with the X1D.

Edited June 3, 2019 by hdmesa

[ramarren]

21 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Same thing happened with the Q when it was launched – back-ordered semi-indefinitely if you didn't order close to launch day. If both where on the table in front of me as you say, I'd have to handle both to decide. I'd be looking to see if the added weight of the Q2 was a big deal or a non-issue; I'd want to see if the rendering at f/1.7 @ MFD was the same, etc. (new sensor = new film). Stuff like that. High res with uncompressed DNG is a downside for me of the Q2. I would have also have preferred to have seen SL-level weather resistance. The note from Leica that the Q2 weather-resistance degrades over time does not inspire confidence.

If you want the camera that has the "most to offer", buying the X1D now might be premature. The next version, due to be announced any time now, will likely have weather resistance and the 100mp BSI sensor. If not putting your money into the previous model Q concerned you, not sure it makes sense to do that exact same thing with the X1D.

I can compare the Q and Q2 right now, on the table in front of me, because the local Leica Store in SF has both there to display and demo. They simply don't have unsold stock of Q2 units at the present time; I'd have to wait to take one home.

I didn't say anything about "most to offer". I said that if I were going to buy a Q line camera, I'd pick the Q2 because it has more to offer, and the other cameras I have already do everything the original Q does pretty well. Regards the X1D, one of the reasons I could consider buying one is that now there is a good supply of "certified pre-owned" units from Hasselblad available with warranty at a reasonable price. I already know that camera very well, it suits what I have in mind for it very well, and the potential upgrades in the new model soon to come are of no consequence to me. 

The note about weather-resistance degrading is just common sense. ALL cameras with weather-sealing features need maintenance to keep the weather-sealing performance at the original specification. Seals dry out, shrink over time, need to be lubed or replaced regularly for as-new performance no matter what camera you look at; this is common sense. Some lawyer at Leica simply felt there might be a liability issue if they didn't explicitly state this. 

[hdmesa]

4 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I can compare the Q and Q2 right now, on the table in front of me, because the local Leica Store in SF has both there to display and demo. They simply don't have unsold stock of Q2 units at the present time; I'd have to wait to take one home.

I didn't say anything about "most to offer". I said that if I were going to buy a Q line camera, I'd pick the Q2 because it has more to offer, and the other cameras I have already do everything the original Q does pretty well. Regards the X1D, one of the reasons I could consider buying one is that now there is a good supply of "certified pre-owned" units from Hasselblad available with warranty at a reasonable price. I already know that camera very well, it suits what I have in mind for it very well, and the potential upgrades in the new model soon to come are of no consequence to me. 

The note about weather-resistance degrading is just common sense. ALL cameras with weather-sealing features need maintenance to keep the weather-sealing performance at the original specification. Seals dry out, shrink over time, need to be lubed or replaced regularly for as-new performance no matter what camera you look at; this is common sense. Some lawyer at Leica simply felt there might be a liability issue if they didn't explicitly state this. 

I don't remember reading Leica saying the same thing about the SL – that was my point. It's a level of resistance lower than the SL that doesn't interest me.

Not trying to turn this into some sort of argument. Enjoy either choice you make. Wish I lived close enough to a Leica store to have tried them both.

[ramarren]

9 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I don't remember reading Leica saying the same thing about the SL – that was my point. It's a level of resistance lower than the SL that doesn't interest me.

Not trying to turn this into some sort of argument. Enjoy either choice you make. Wish I lived close enough to a Leica store to have tried them both.

LOL! I don't know what you mean by a "level of resistance lower than the SL..." ? But what I mean was simply that some hotshot new lawyer simply decided it was a good idea to put a statement in about the weather-sealing after sitting in an engineering meeting ...

[hdmesa]

20 minutes ago, ramarren said:

LOL! I don't know what you mean by a "level of resistance lower than the SL..." ? But what I mean was simply that some hotshot new lawyer simply decided it was a good idea to put a statement in about the weather-sealing after sitting in an engineering meeting ...

The Q2 is IP52-level protection. Use of the SL in the field has shown it can take quite a bit more than that, though I don't think Leica ever certified it to any IP level. Hopefully same holds true for the Q2.

[ramarren]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. 

I have not spent much time reading all the fine print about stuff like weather sealing that way. None of my cameras, weather sealed or not, have ever had a problem with shooting in rain or flying grit given how I handle them. And none have ever failed from internal corrosion due to water leaking in. I'll keep my fingers crossed now...  

[Guest]

On 3/27/2019 at 1:18 AM, Learner said:

Besides availability, being time-tested, and being 1000 USD cheaper, does the Leica Q have any advantage over the Q2?

None......thats like asking does the Nikon D1 have any advantage over the D5. The new Q2 has all the bells and whistles and is my current choice of camera.

Neil

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, NW67 said:

None......thats like asking does the Nikon D1 have any advantage over the D5. The new Q2 has all the bells and whistles and is my current choice of camera.

Neil

The correct and almost exact analogy would be advantages of the Nikon Df/D4 over the D5, of which there are some for some people.