Leica Q2 Jpeg

[drdannn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/4/2019 at 3:59 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. 

I often shoot jpegs with the Q. I use Photoshop "Camera Raw" editing and it's fantastic.

 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb drdannn:

I often shoot jpegs with the Q. I use Photoshop "Camera Raw" editing and it's fantastic.

For me shooting JPG but editing them is a contradiction as editing a RAW poto gives you better results.
I would shoot raw if i ned to upload the photo somewhere without any editing.

Chris

[GMJ]

Hello, my first post on this forum!

Leica Q2 JPG straight out of the camera are excellent (in my opinion) and I'm very happy with them. I have an on-line smugmug album here; and if you browse for Norway, all these are JPG's OOC taken with the Q2 (apart from the snow mobile images). also, my Lockdown Project - Spring Flowers are all Q2 OOC JPG's

 

 Not sure what happened to the link...:

Glenn

[piblondin]

On 4/18/2020 at 7:52 PM, 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.

This is simply not true. Post-processing is not at all what makes a photographer. 

[A2_Foto]

This is one of the main things that took me away from buying the Leica Q.  

Unfortunately, I'm not willing to deal with 80MB+ RAW Images, when I'm shooting a photo session with over 1000 Images. 

I tried tweaking the JPEGs from the Leica as much as I could - but they come nowhere near to what I find in Fuji. 

I know, I know, I should have used only RAW - but it deters my workflow. The Leica Q images are 'clinically' extremely good, and the OOF areas amazing, but still, for the way I'm working, I couldn't really use/push the images the way I wanted. I just couldn't get the right skin tones (look at the images attached)- and I did make a couple hundreds of photos.   
Anyways, I think a 5000$ camera should work good a BOTH Jpegs & Raw. Just my two cents! 

And with the Fuji X100V I have some extra factors which don't come with the Leica: 

1) Portability : it's much smaller on the front side because of the length, and it's really 'pocketable.

2) Optical View finder  3) Built ND Filter 4) Great Jpeg settings 5) Manageable file sizes 6) Connectivity - a variety of ports

I honestly don't think it's really worth the upgrade for $3500+ more. 

(The upper image is from the Fuji X100v - the lower one from the Leica Q) 
 

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!

Edited February 20, 2021 by A2_Foto

[jaapv]

To be  honest, I think both are not really very good... If I were forced  I’d pick the Leica one. The top one has a Cyan cast which maker it horrible  to behold. I have never seen much workflow difference between working raw and JPG in LR. Raw has a couple of clicks more for a better result, jpg costs more time to get right if at all

If your ambition is to shoot JPG, you are certainly right that Leica is not for you moneywise. Actually I find My iPhone 11 Pro beats any camera on the market in that department. 

[fumigatus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To be honest, I like the images 🙂 But I really believe the bottom one is clearly the best. But it may be my screen, and I fully respect A2_Foto`s opinion.

[wda]

29 minutes ago, A2_Foto said:

This is one of the main things that took me away from buying the Leica Q.  

Unfortunately, I'm not willing to deal with 80MB+ RAW Images, when I'm shooting a photo session with over 1000 Images. 

I tried tweaking the JPEGs from the Leica as much as I could - but they come nowhere near to what I find in Fuji. 

I know, I know, I should have used only RAW - but it deters my workflow. The Leica Q images are 'clinically' extremely good, and the OOF areas amazing, but still, for the way I'm working, I couldn't really use/push the images the way I wanted. I just couldn't get the right skin tones (look at the images attached)- and I did make a couple hundreds of photos.   
Anyways, I think a 5000$ camera should work good a BOTH Jpegs & Raw. Just my two cents! 

And with the Fuji X100V I have some extra factors which don't come with the Leica: 

1) Portability : it's much smaller on the front side because of the length, and it's really 'pocketable.

2) Optical View finder  3) Built ND Filter 4) Great Jpeg settings 5) Manageable file sizes 6) Connectivity - a variety of ports

I honestly don't think it's really worth the upgrade for $3500+ more. 

(The upper image is from the Fuji X100v - the lower one from the Leica Q) 
 

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!

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

[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 about, IMHO. 

[jaapv]

On 2/20/2021 at 1:41 PM, andybarton said:

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 about, IMHO. 

If he likes the Fuji one his monitor calibration is way off. Even a bare minimum of 10 seconds processing  on a web jpg improves the result immeasurably, although the Fuji one would benefit most from a B&W conversion.

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!

 

[MikeD70]

On 4/27/2020 at 11:40 PM, piblondin said:

This is simply not true. Post-processing is not at all what makes a photographer. 

You are correct, first off, it should be pleasing to your eye.  As far as post, well, as a retired news and sports photographer, 99.9% of post consists of resize and white point.  I can't remember a single editor that would accept a raw image.  Or one that was a result of manipulation via post processing.  You learn to trust your eye. 

[jaapv]

I disagree, Mike, although it depends on the type of photography..  In general, 50-50, just like with film. 50% camera/lens, 50% darkroom.

[Leica28]

I suppose art lies (ultimately) in the eye of the beholder.  To my eyes the Leica image clearly beats the Fuji photo six ways to Sunday.  I’m not sure what photography session you are engaged in where you are shooting 1000+ images.  I’ve done large scale commercial shoots, multiple-day weddings, etc, and never came even remotely close to even 300 images.  An experienced and talented photographer does not have to shoot “everything that moves.”  I’ve known photographers who fired off a hundred rounds in hopes that a single photo would be the one.   Even when I was shooting commercials using 35mm motion picture film, I never said lets burn 50 extra cans of film in case we missed something.  Perhaps we have separate shooting styles but 1000+ images is beyond practical at least for me.  

[mikegml]

I own 2 Fujis, and have had 6 over the years.  I have the Q2 and also had the Q. Q2 jpegs are just fine. Fuji jpegs are good but not that good.  The "Leica jpeg bad Fuji jpeg good" is grossly exaggerated.  On colour balance at least my Q2 is always more accurate than my Fujis.  

[gteague]

On 4/3/2019 at 7:23 AM, tkao2025 said:

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.

just got my q2 a couple weeks ago. also have owned the cl for over a year. i shoot jpeg only about 98% of the time and thus need the sooc jpegs to be acceptable, if perhaps not as good as my panasonic gh5 and s1 which are truly exceptional. i found i had to tweak all the film style settings up to maximum in order to get acceptable jpegs out of my cl, but they're very good and hardly ever need any desktop  editing.

while waiting for the q2 to arrive i read perhaps two dozen reviews both text and video and nearly invariably the reviews said the jpegs were dreadful or useless or at best, poor. i didn't realize when i bought the q2 that it works nearly exactly like the cl and upon learning this i figured i'd have to max out the q2 style settings as well.

that hasn't proven the case. i can duplicate the cl jpegs by simply bumping the sharpening up and leaving all other style settings as is. i can't find it now, but i'm pretty sure i read a footnote in the v3.0 firmware update that the jpeg engine had been improved and that would make sense that the reviewers i read hadn't had this update installed.

another note, i've already found the exposure meter in the q2 is superior to nearly every other camera i've owned including the s1 and the cl. i shot a scene yesterday in harsh lighting with a near-black subject and washed out background and it metered it better than i could have done with a spot meter and the zone system.

in short, couldn't be more pleased and i intend to shoot more raw now i've found an editor i can understand to take advantage of the higher resolution of the q2 sensor. 

/guy

[gteague]

On 4/27/2020 at 10:40 PM, piblondin said:

This is simply not true. Post-processing is not at all what makes a photographer. 

as someone who has logged hundreds or thousands of hours in a darkroom since my first plastic enlarger at age 11, i disagree strongly as well. this post seems to ignore the huge advances in jpeg engines in cameras made in the last 10 years. /guy

Edited February 24, 2021 by gteague

[acg69]

Interesting topic...:) Up until a few days ago I was using both the Q2 and an X100F. I do post processing in Lr (just the usual stuff, nothing exotic) so I tend to shoot RAW. This has certainly been the case with the Q2. I have shot JPEGs with it as well and *to my eyes* they look fine. However, since I know that I will be going into Lr to do pp, it makes no sense at all shooting JPEG. On the other hand, I really liked Fuji’s film simulations, especially ACROS (exclusively for JPEG), so I sort of separated my workflow in such a way to reflect just that: if pp, then RAW = Q2, else JPEG (X100F). I believe that if one is looking to shoot JPEG (because they do not intend to do post processing) they are already accepting the limitations of the format in the interest of maybe a faster and more hassle-free workflow. Whether one chooses the Q2 as their weapon of choice in this case, is up to a lot of other parameters than the quality of the JPEGs per se, i.e. the whole shooting experience, the lens, the cropping ability etc. Would I choose it? Possibly not. The reason is that if I am in a “hassle-free - fast workflow” sort of mentality, I am less likely to start fiddling with the settings to create or replicate a film recipe or experiment with all this. I would choose (I have indeed chosen) the Fuji for this due to the simplicity and the quality of their JPEG engine. As it stands today, I sold the X100F and kept the Q2. Shooting RAW exclusively and dialing in whatever I need in pp. Takes longer but I enjoy it:) Hope all that made sense!

[Mahesh]

Fuji jpegs, especially for the skin tones are unbeatable in my opinion. I have a X100V and I will use it anyday for the SOOC pictures. With RAW, I can't be bothered fiddling with Fuji.

[A2_Foto]

Ok folks! I decided to rent a Q2 instead of a Q (from the first pictures) - and with the updated Firmware 3.0 . 
I have to say that now, for my taste it is really working for me 🙃 - and I can see it now as my replacement for the Fuji X100V. 

I mean... after having it for a week, the image quality just blew me away. After returning the Q2, I did more pictures with my Fuji, but man... I took the red pill. It's hard to go back. I placed an order to buy it 😬

Normally, 50 MP is too much, but I've found it very handy for cropping, and I really like using the 28mm angle of view. I have to say it also gives a good bokeh and subject separation (If you're close enough). I would avoid close-ups when the subject is on the corner because of the wide angle distortion. 

Here are more examples. These are directly edited JPGs in Lightroom. 

LIGHTROOM ALBUM    - Random pictures, but cool
LIGHTROOM ALBUM 2  - Photo session with model. In my opinion skin colors look great after Firmware 3.0  

I know - I should use RAW. I should probably only adjust the exposure and so on. But I have a personal take on the color grading and some texture in the pictures. This is just my personal taste & touch, coming from the Fujifilm world, and I'm sure many have been there asking themselves the same question. My workflow does not consist in storing endless amounts of huge RAW files, and travel around with several SSD drives. I mostly share my content to my clients via Lightroom and I don't want the hassle that the DNGs involve. 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the matter, I just wanted to share my two bits of experience and this could help people take a decision. 

My main advices coming from the Fuji x100 series: 
1) If you're not sure, rent the camera. I'm sure it's possible in some stores. 
2) It's bigger, heavier and bulkier than the Fuji. I don't mind, but it will NOT fit in your pocket. 
3) You will loose a lot of personalization options - Fuji allows you to do so many edits on the camera that the SOOC Jpgs barely need any extra work. 
4) But you're getting an extremely, extremely good lens and it's a very flexible camera. I don't crop much to be honest, but it comes handy.   

What else can I say - experience beats a lot of theory. So after reading forums for a couple of weeks (5k is a lot of money) I decided to try it out myself and for me it's a good enough camera to do the jump, and try to use it as my only camera. 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Leica28]

A2_Foto,

Glad you got to experience the Q2 before buying.   As you found out, it is a superb camera all the way around.  It will give you many many years of enjoyment.   Have fun!