Q2 Color & Overall Image Rendition Thoughts

[Catgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, this is my first post on the forums. A few months ago I became the proud owner of a preowned Leica Q after being a Sony A7rII / Rx1rII shooter for about 3 years. I've been extremely happy with the Q and my Sony system has been mostly collecting dust ever since. I'm intrigued by the Q2 and I'm currently considering getting one for a trip on late November. 

I've read a couple of comments from Q2 users in forums as well as youtube reviews that mention the overall image rendition or look is quite not the same as in the original Q. I do understand the larger megapixel count obviously has benefits such as the ability to crop and have useful 35 and 50mm crops with no problem which I must admit is attractive to me, but I'm concerned the overall look and minimal processing I have become accustomed to, won't be possible with the Q2. After all, this is one of the aspects I like most about the Q, as Sony files tend to require considerable post processing, especially to fix skin tones.

Any previous Q users out there that can share your thoughts on this?

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dancook]

I wish I knew the the answer to this..

I had a Q from 2015 and got the Q2 earlier this year.

I always shoot raw and process my image, so it's hard to know what contributed to a particular look - just a combination of the light, processing and the camera/lens/sensor.

When I look back at the images, it's easy to assign the feelings to the time when I shot with xxxx camera - those were good times. I have more photos that provoke emotion with the Q, I've had it longer..

Q1 natural, Q1 flash, Q2 natural - but all with some processing - but I never processed for skin tones

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!

Q2- Louise by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by dancook

[dancook]

Oh my flickr has become a dumping ground for all the Q2 shots I have posted online - processing is done to all of them, often just a preset that I like

https://www.flickr.com/photos/91635781@N08/

[zampelis]

5 minutes ago, dancook said:

Oh my flickr has become a dumping ground for all the Q2 shots I have posted online - processing is done to all of them, often just a preset that I like

https://www.flickr.com/photos/91635781@N08/

Your Viper at page 5 is exquisite Dan! I am pretty sure that your Q2 rendered its skin tones perfectly!

Edited June 24, 2019 by zampelis

[dancook]

3 minutes ago, zampelis said:

Your Viper at page 5 is exquisite Dan! I am pretty sure that Q2 rendered its skin tones perfectly!

You've gone too far !  I didn't realise I had about 15 images at the beginning of the flickr not by the Q2 - that was 100-400 lens i think on Sony

Edited June 24, 2019 by dancook

[bags27]

Great photos, Dan!

The tweak to the Q2 is not only the doubling of the pixels. I believe they also tweaked the processor, which only makes sense given the doubling of information it needs to handle. That had to change the rendition at least somewhat. The M10, SL, and Q all have 24 mps sensors, yet the processors are slightly different, and, especially between the M10, on one hand, and the Q and SL on the other, there is a different rendition. (I so much prefer that of the M10.) Some believe it's only because M mount glass (derived from the film tradition) is different from L mount glass. But I think I can see different rendition even when (1) M glass is on the SL; and (2) the M10 is shooting with the newest built-for-digital glass (such as the 35mm f/1.4 FLE or the 50 mm f/2 ASPH). 

I was shocked (not in a good way) by the earliest Q2 photos (far more by those in color than in monochrome). I've gotten used to them now, and see the advantages of the Q2, which I'd probably buy, were I doing it again. I'd just hope that I could bring the aesthetics around to personal taste in post.

[Catgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, bags27 said:

Great photos, Dan!

The tweak to the Q2 is not only the doubling of the pixels. I believe they also tweaked the processor, which only makes sense given the doubling of information it needs to handle. That had to change the rendition at least somewhat. The M10, SL, and Q all have 24 mps sensors, yet the processors are slightly different, and, especially between the M10, on one hand, and the Q and SL on the other, there is a different rendition. (I so much prefer that of the M10.) Some believe it's only because M mount glass (derived from the film tradition) is different from L mount glass. But I think I can see different rendition even when (1) M glass is on the SL; and (2) the M10 is shooting with the newest built-for-digital glass (such as the 35mm f/1.4 FLE or the 50 mm f/2 ASPH). 

I was shocked (not in a good way) by the earliest Q2 photos (far more by those in color than in monochrome). I've gotten used to them now, and see the advantages of the Q2, which I'd probably buy, were I doing it again. I'd just hope that I could bring the aesthetics around to personal taste in post.

Thanks for your insight, I was surprised at the first Q2 sample images as well, these just looked a bit flat vs my Q. Because of this I started to wonder if i'd regret upgrading. At the moment, 24mp is quite sufficient for my use, however having the Q2 would allow me to travel with just 1 camera knowing I have the option to crop to 35 and 50mm with no noticeable loss in quality when printing.

9 hours ago, dancook said:

I wish I knew the the answer to this..

I had a Q from 2015 and got the Q2 earlier this year.

I always shoot raw and process my image, so it's hard to know what contributed to a particular look - just a combination of the light, processing and the camera/lens/sensor.

When I look back at the images, it's easy to assign the feelings to the time when I shot with xxxx camera - those were good times. I have more photos that provoke emotion with the Q, I've had it longer..

Q1 natural, Q1 flash, Q2 natural - but all with some processing - but I never processed for skin tones

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!

Q2- Louise by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

 

Thanks for taking the time of a detailed response, beautiful images by the way. Skin tones are great with the Q and it makes me want to shoot more with it than my Sony gear. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Catgo

[bags27]

I'm not persuaded by the 75 mm crop argument. Not that it mathematically can't. But you can pretty much crop to that with the Q for simple posting on the web. For printing, I'd have to ask myself how often I print large enough for that to make a difference and weigh that against processing massive files for every photo.

I also have a philosophical problem with having a 3x zoom that's doesn't actually zoom: with a true zoom, you at least can see exactly what you're photographing and sense an intimate connection to the subject. But with the fixed 28mm acting as a cropping zoom, you are aiming at something and figuring out what it is in post. For me, this is too close to the objections the Frankfort School made about photography in general (especially Walter Benjamin's, "The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction"), that such works lose their "aura." There is some alienation from the subject with any lens, but especially so with a fixed lens that acts as a zoom only after the fact, on your computer. All cropping creates a zoom, but there are degrees to this, and I think buying a fixed lens with the intention of using it that way takes the process beyond my philosophy of aesthetics. Of course, I'm completely nuts, so ignore....

[dancook]

2 hours ago, bags27 said:

I also have a philosophical problem with having a 3x zoom that's doesn't actually zoom: with a true zoom, you at least can see exactly what you're photographing and sense an intimate connection to the subject. But with the fixed 28mm acting as a cropping zoom, you are aiming at something and figuring out what it is in post

It's the same as how the M series range finder works with longer lenses, you have crop lines and a increasing small area to work with.

I use the crop functions because cropping is not an after thought when I took the image specifically for the 50mm field of view.

Edited June 24, 2019 by dancook

[bags27]

Really interesting, Dan: thanks! Actually, I suspect that you're one of the few who uses the Q2's crop lines.  And the crop lines are just suggestive, but on the M they are reality: you make your decision when you have a lens on that conforms to those lines. To a greater extent, then, the photographer is making a decision when engaged with the subject. Of course, I agree that with today's 24 mps M, (say) a standard reportage 35 mm lens will get you through of lot of what you might need. So maybe there's not much difference. But I still think there's a higher degree of intentional design on the part of the photographer.

 

[benedictc]

I had rented the classic Q for a few weeks through Borrowlenses prior to getting my hands on a Q2. When I compare the quality of skin color and rendering  between the Q/Q2, I definitely feel there is a difference. The Q2 has so much detail that it is a little scary to see. Maybe that attributes to one of the differences that I notice. Color wise - it is difficult to determine either is better then the other. 

When the faces have a bit of shadow and I have to shoot at 2000 - 3200, the noise of the classic Q renders more naturally (film like). This has been validated by others and official review sites

[bags27]

42 minutes ago, benedictc said:

I had rented the classic Q for a few weeks through Borrowlenses prior to getting my hands on a Q2. When I compare the quality of skin color and rendering  between the Q/Q2, I definitely feel there is a difference. The Q2 has so much detail that it is a little scary to see. Maybe that attributes to one of the differences that I notice. Color wise - it is difficult to determine either is better then the other. 

When the faces have a bit of shadow and I have to shoot at 2000 - 3200, the noise of the classic Q renders more naturally (film like). This has been validated by others and official review sites

You put into words exactly some of the things I was feeling when I saw the first Q2 photos. Of course, in post, you can put in a little noise into Q2 images (seems odd to do, but there it is) and use the blur tool lightly. This isn't a "complaint" confined to the Q2. Some lenses are actually seen by some as "too sharp" (the Zeiss 35 f/1.4 is loved by some, avoided by others for that reason; 50 year old M lenses are prized for their "character"). But as all cameras and most lenses render ever sharper and more detailed images, the aesthetic will become the norm. 5 years from now, I'll likely own a Q3. I won't be as amazed by it as I was by the Q, but as Janis sang:

Oh lord, wont you buy me a mercedes benz?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.

[Matsaly]

12 hours ago, bags27 said:

I was shocked (not in a good way) by the earliest Q2 photos (far more by those in color than in monochrome). I've gotten used to them now, and see the advantages of the Q2, which I'd probably buy, were I doing it again. I'd just hope that I could bring the aesthetics around to personal taste in post.

I find your last comment to be intriguing. Could you please elaborate upon what you perceive are the "advantages" of the Q2's image quality?

FWIW- Although I'm on the "wait list" for a Q2 I'm still not convinced it's the "right move " for me. To elaborate slightly, I don't care about the higher res sensor. All my work is just to share with friends & family. At most I'm viewing my work on a 27" iMac and an iPad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bags27]

21 minutes ago, Matsaly said:

I find your last comment to be intriguing. Could you please elaborate upon what you perceive are the "advantages" of the Q2's image quality?

FWIW- Although I'm on the "wait list" for a Q2 I'm still not convinced it's the "right move " for me. To elaborate slightly, I don't care about the higher res sensor. All my work is just to share with friends & family. At most I'm viewing my work on a 27" iMac and an iPad.

Weatherproofing (up to a point, at least) is a definite advantage, and I've seen macro work with the Q2 that is breathtaking. If that's important to you--and it is to me--then it's certainly worth the difference in price, IMO. Were I making the purchase now, I'd probably buy it and figure out how to process the photos. But I have no motivation to upgrade, as I'm far more interested in exploring my CL. Don't know if this helps.

[Matsaly]

Indeed the weather resistance is the single most important reason I am thinking about going for the Q2. Regarding the macro work, do you attribute the improvements over the Q to the new sensor/resolution size or something else?

 

[bags27]

On 6/24/2019 at 9:46 PM, Matsaly said:

Regarding the macro work, do you attribute the improvements over the Q to the new sensor/resolution size or something else?

 

I don't really know. The person I have in mind is a fantastic photographer with any equipment. Check out IQ2 on this page:

 

[hdmesa]

On 6/23/2019 at 10:12 PM, Catgo said:

Hello, this is my first post on the forums. A few months ago I became the proud owner of a preowned Leica Q after being a Sony A7rII / Rx1rII shooter for about 3 years. I've been extremely happy with the Q and my Sony system has been mostly collecting dust ever since. I'm intrigued by the Q2 and I'm currently considering getting one for a trip on late November. 

I've read a couple of comments from Q2 users in forums as well as youtube reviews that mention the overall image rendition or look is quite not the same as in the original Q. I do understand the larger megapixel count obviously has benefits such as the ability to crop and have useful 35 and 50mm crops with no problem which I must admit is attractive to me, but I'm concerned the overall look and minimal processing I have become accustomed to, won't be possible with the Q2. After all, this is one of the aspects I like most about the Q, as Sony files tend to require considerable post processing, especially to fix skin tones.

Any previous Q users out there that can share your thoughts on this?

Thanks!

It's a new sensor, so there is certainly going to be a change in rendering. So far, I'm not impressed with the samples posted, and I feel the Q2 rendering falls behind the original Q – but that may be due to the small sample size of photographers posting Q2 images and the fact that I'm biased having chosen a Q-P over the Q2. Whatever the change, it's certainly less dramatic than the move away from the M9 sensor.

 

[SonomaBear]

On 6/24/2019 at 1:43 AM, dancook said:

Oh my flickr has become a dumping ground for all the Q2 shots I have posted online - processing is done to all of them, often just a preset that I like

https://www.flickr.com/photos/91635781@N08/

Thank you Dan.  I like your work. Especially the landscapes.  My Q is asking for a younger brother... Do I trade in my Q or keep it as my spare?  I traveled Italy for a few weeks with only the Q, over 1,200 images, but afraid of a single point of failure.

I'll go into San Francisco to try the Q2 with my Q by my side.  On rare occasions I want 50mm and 75mm so I want to shoot both bodies on the street and compare the RAWs for realistic printing.  Most of my orders are no larger than 24x36" and, if I am meticulous, I can print a 50MM Q crop to that size with acceptable acutance.*. The Q2 should be easier.  75mm ???

--
* Wikipedia: In photography, the term "acutance" describes a subjective perception of sharpness that is related to the edge contrast of an image. Acutance is related to the amplitude of the derivative of brightness with respect to space. Due to the nature of the human visual system, an image with higher acutance appears sharper even though an increase in acutance does not increase real resolution.

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 June 26, 2019 by SonomaBear
add a sample Q image from Roma

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Guest]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

It's a new sensor, so there is certainly going to be a change in rendering. So far, I'm not impressed with the samples posted, and I feel the Q2 rendering falls behind the original Q – but that may be due to the small sample size of photographers posting Q2 images and the fact that I'm biased having chosen a Q-P over the Q2. Whatever the change, it's certainly less dramatic than the move away from the M9 sensor.

 

I had the original Q and I was always amazed by its IQ but having bought the Q2 it doesn’t give me the same wow factor, not that it’s IQ is bad.  However, going from the SL to Pana S1R I get the opposite feeling, which is odd.

[bags27]

1 minute ago, maziatr said:

I had the original Q and I was always amazed by its IQ but having bought the Q2 it doesn’t give me the same wow factor, not that it’s IQ is bad.  However, going from the SL to Pana S1R I get the opposite feeling, which is odd.

Just to clarify: you appreciated the larger sensor in the S1R swap for your SL, but not in the Q2 for the Q.

Did you compare the S1R with the SL using the same lens(es)? And of course, the S1R is chocked full of bells and whistles not in the SL, while the Q and Q2 have the same UI.