Jump to content

Leica Q2 Jpeg

tkao2025
 Share

Recommended Posts

tkao2025

tkao2025

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Everyone.  New to these forums.  

I'm interested in the Q2, but I've read the Jpeg images don't render all that well.  I'm a Fuji shooter and love the Jpeg colors from the cameras and shoot mainly in Jpeg.  For those that have the Q2 or Q for that matter, how do the Jpeg images translate from the camera?  Anyone else have Fuji cameras and can comment on quality to Jpeg compared to the Leica Q/Q2? 

Thanks so much.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

wda
wda

Aside from white balance problems, the Q picture gives far better separation of subject from background.  An altogether more pleasing portrait. 

andybarton
andybarton

Apart from all that distracting red metalwork everywhere.    The colour cast in the Fuji version is horrible. If that’s the best jpg that they can produce then it’s not worth waxing lyrical abo

oldwino
oldwino

If you like the way the JPEGs look, then they are fantastic.    There is no “one true way”. This ain’t no religion.

Posted Images

wda

wda

Posted
Posted

Welcome. If you can, visit a Leica dealer where you can discuss your concerns directly. Software often lags the launch of a new camera, so intital results might suffer. You know that Raw files will always have the potential for higher quality results than jpegs processed in camera.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ricky1981

ricky1981

Posted
Posted

Jpegs on my original Q were pretty poor, not even close to my X-Pro2 but Fuji is well known for having some of the best OOC images. I've seen some people have good success using the Vivid preset with contrast and saturation boosted on Q/Q2 but I tend to use RAW files.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matero

Matero

Posted
Posted

As @ricky1981 already mentioned, at least Q’s jpeg hardly comparable to Fuji’s. 

But Leica raw, just amazing how easy it is to produce nice images. Totally opposite to e.g. Fuji, which raw needs specific editor and good skills to avoid mushy results. 

Basically, Fuji is excellent choice for jpeg shooter, in camera processor and settings offer nice results with modest raw processing skills, but Leica is excellent for raw shooting and easy to develop nice results.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ricky1981

ricky1981

Posted
Posted

^ That's a great summary and reflects my results too. Fuji RAW files needed some careful attention for good results whereas the Q/Q2 RAWs are very easy to work with.

That said, if you spend some time playing with settings you may well find a jpeg output that works for you. I know Eric Kim's review as all jpeg (Vivid with full contrast/saturation/sharpening) and he got some great shots. Personally I don't really like the idea of having to push settings that hard, I'd rather have a slightly more neutral starting point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
leicamario

leicamario

Posted
Posted

Same here. You cannot compare the fabulous JPEGs from Fuji with the Q‘s. Why doesn‘t Leica invest some time in getting their in-camera jpegs near the ballpark of Fuji? Yeah yeah, leica is all about hard work. I get it 🙄 Still, for the price, it would be great.

Imagine the quality of Q‘s sensor and lens with the jpeg engine of Fuji.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazesus

Hazesus

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

check out my Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/29681212@N04/  90% of the photos are just JPEGS so the fact that i read they the JPEG's aren't any good i don't believe it. I have Fuji JPEGS as well and the Leica is much nicer. can also check out my IG: to view a bigger gallery https://www.instagram.com/dimanatti/ I shoot raw as a back up only. 

Edited by Hazesus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
leicamario

leicamario

Posted
Posted
vor einer Stunde schrieb Hazesus:

check out my Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/29681212@N04/  90% of the photos are just JPEGS so the fact that i read they the JPEG's aren't any good i don't believe it. I have Fuji JPEGS as well and the Leica is much nicer. can also check out my IG: to view a bigger gallery https://www.instagram.com/dimanatti/ I shoot raw as a back up only. 

Try some more skin tones in different lighting situations... they suck compared to fuji.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tkao2025

tkao2025

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, Hazesus said:

check out my Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/29681212@N04/  90% of the photos are just JPEGS so the fact that i read they the JPEG's aren't any good i don't believe it. I have Fuji JPEGS as well and the Leica is much nicer. can also check out my IG: to view a bigger gallery https://www.instagram.com/dimanatti/ I shoot raw as a back up only. 

Thanks for the link.  Pictures are great, but to be honest I wouldn't know if they were taken from Leica or Fuji.  Are you sure you didn't post process the pictures and they came straight out of the camera as Jpegs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
elopezso

elopezso

Posted
Posted
On 4/4/2019 at 6:59 AM, Hazesus said:

check out my Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/29681212@N04/  90% of the photos are just JPEGS so the fact that i read they the JPEG's aren't any good i don't believe it. I have Fuji JPEGS as well and the Leica is much nicer. can also check out my IG: to view a bigger gallery https://www.instagram.com/dimanatti/ I shoot raw as a back up only. 

Hazesus,  those are excellent photos with beautiful colors.  What JPEG filter and settings do you use?

Link to post
Share on other sites
PhotoCruiser

PhotoCruiser

Posted
Posted
vor 3 Stunden schrieb Stonewall Brigade:

his may sound presumptive, sorry, but your photography's not going to advance till you learn to use RAW and then find a decent software.

Well, the quality of his photographies will not change, but the quality of the edited RAW photos will as long someone knows the editing program.

Photos where always "edited", originally manually in the dark room and now digitally on the computer, this knowledge is part of being a advanced photographer.

For me having a Leica camera and recording jpg photos fells to me like like driving a Ferrari with the cheapest tires on the rims....

The only reason to use only JPG would be that:
a) i don't know how to use a raw converter and how to edit photos and don't wan't to learn it
b) i don''t wan/can to spend time to do the above
c) i don't want/can to upgrade my computer and/or storage space

For me, i don't see absolutely no reason why i should use only JPG due the inferior quality of the photos.
When i am in the fields and need to see immediately the photos on cellphone or tablet,
then i record JPG and RAW so that i can watch the JPG files to get a first idea of what i shot.

Chris




 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Stonewall Brigade said:

This may sound presumptive, sorry, but your photography's not going to advance till you learn to use RAW and then find a decent software.  I myself use Capture One Pro to make adjustments to my RAW images and then convert the final edits into jpeg.

The op did not ask about advancing his photography.

He was wondering if anyone could pass on opinions on the leica jpegs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Stonewall Brigade said:

And I replied that relying primarily on JPEGs is not the way to advance one's photography, that is correct. You must be an insulted JPEG shooter too?

Point i was making was that the op wanted to know specifically about the jpegs on a the Q2.

Why would he want somebody pontificating about advancing his photography?

Are you a better photographer than all the people who shoot jpegs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Regarding the thread topic.

I have an m type 262 as well as an olympus pen and always shoot with jpegs.

Olympus jpegs have a very good reputation but i actually really like the more subtle rendition i get from my leica.

In fact i think the leica jpegs are beautiful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
micheldesvaux

micheldesvaux

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, steve 1959 said:

Regarding the thread topic.

I have an m type 262 as well as an olympus pen and always shoot with jpegs.

Olympus jpegs have a very good reputation but i actually really like the more subtle rendition i get from my leica.

In fact i think the leica jpegs are beautiful.

And I think so too

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...