Leica Guy Posted September 24, 2019 Share #121 Posted September 24, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 hour ago, bags27 said: Steve Huff just wrote this, comparing it to the original Q: "The Q2 fails miserably in low light" https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/09/19/the-leica-sl2-leaked-here-is-what-it-may-look-like-and-some-specs/ Is anyone else experiencing that? Not my sense from those of you on this site who own one. I mostly ignore the negatives about the Q2. The images I’ve taken please me. I have not in any way noticed a distinct difference from my original Q except I can crop more. Both cameras exhibit some noise beginning around ISO 800. Who cares? They’re still very useful images and the noise can mostly be managed in PS and LR. I want to spend my time taking photos and not worrying about the latest technical nit about my camera. There is NO perfect camera. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Hi Leica Guy, Take a look here Anyone Else Staying with Q over Q2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bags27 Posted September 24, 2019 Share #122 Posted September 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, Leica Guy said: I mostly ignore the negatives about the Q2. The images I’ve taken please me. I have not in any way noticed a distinct difference from my original Q except I can crop more. Both cameras exhibit some noise beginning around ISO 800. Who cares? They’re still very useful images and the noise can mostly be managed in PS and LR. I want to spend my time taking photos and not worrying about the latest technical nit about my camera. There is NO perfect camera. +1. I thought it was an odd comment. There may be ever so slightly more or slightly less IQ between the 2 cameras, but no significant difference in low light, from all that I've seen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted September 24, 2019 Share #123 Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, bags27 said: Steve Huff just wrote this, comparing it to the original Q: "The Q2 fails miserably in low light" https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/09/19/the-leica-sl2-leaked-here-is-what-it-may-look-like-and-some-specs/ Is anyone else experiencing that? Not my sense from those of you on this site who own one. I generally enjoy reading his blog but page hits= $ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted September 24, 2019 Share #124 Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, bags27 said: +1. I thought it was an odd comment. There may be ever so slightly more or slightly less IQ between the 2 cameras, but no significant difference in low light, from all that I've seen. For all us old guys who grew up with film and thought ISO 400 was fast and grainy, todays cameras are unreal good. I’d much rather have a lockout for the video display on the Q/Q2 than lower noise. A threaded shutter button that I could use a cable on would also be a preference. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted September 28, 2019 Share #125 Posted September 28, 2019 On 9/25/2019 at 5:31 AM, bags27 said: +1. I thought it was an odd comment. There may be ever so slightly more or slightly less IQ between the 2 cameras, but no significant difference in low light, from all that I've seen. Well Steve tested the Q years ago, so maybe he forgot that the Q isn't a low light beast either. But given that the Q2 "cheats" with ISO (underexposing by 1/2 a stop) I'd say the Q is a bit better with high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted September 28, 2019 Share #126 Posted September 28, 2019 23 minutes ago, Mr.Q said: Well Steve tested the Q years ago, so maybe he forgot that the Q isn't a low light beast either. But given that the Q2 "cheats" with ISO (underexposing by 1/2 a stop) I'd say the Q is a bit better with high ISO. I guess I don't understand that either. For me, the Q is fantastic at low life. I can easily shoot 1/8 second at ~3200 ISO handheld with terrific results. Sure, the usable ISO tops out at 6400 while Nikon can go an easy 2 or 3 stops more. But really, what does anyone need? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted September 28, 2019 Share #127 Posted September 28, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 36 minutes ago, bags27 said: I guess I don't understand that either. For me, the Q is fantastic at low life. I can easily shoot 1/8 second at ~3200 ISO handheld with terrific results. Sure, the usable ISO tops out at 6400 while Nikon can go an easy 2 or 3 stops more. But really, what does anyone need? I don't disagree, but Steve shoots in nightclubs where he regularly shoots at ISO 6400, 12800 and even 25600 so I get where he's coming from. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted September 28, 2019 Share #128 Posted September 28, 2019 11 hours ago, Mr.Q said: I don't disagree, but Steve shoots in nightclubs where he regularly shoots at ISO 6400, 12800 and even 25600 so I get where he's coming from. Look at the photos of Dan Cook with his Q. Nightclubs and concerts. They’re fantastic photos. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted September 28, 2019 Share #129 Posted September 28, 2019 12 minutes ago, Leica Guy said: Look at the photos of Dan Cook with his Q. Nightclubs and concerts. They’re fantastic photos. I have seen them and I agree that his photos are fantastic. I suspect Steve shoots in even darker nightclubs though. I do think there is merit in having higher ISO capabilities. Even if it isn't pitch dark, sometimes I want to freeze the action (1/100s shutter speed) or control the depth of field (F5.6-F8). It certainly opens up more creative possibilities in less than ideal lighting. Take for example bags27's post above. He says he can shoot at 1/8 sec at ISO 3200. (I'd suspect at F1.7) What if he wants to shoot a running child in similar lighting? He'd need at least 4 more stops of ISO. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted September 28, 2019 Share #130 Posted September 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr.Q said: I have seen them and I agree that his photos are fantastic. I suspect Steve shoots in even darker nightclubs though. I do think there is merit in having higher ISO capabilities. Even if it isn't pitch dark, sometimes I want to freeze the action (1/100s shutter speed) or control the depth of field (F5.6-F8). It certainly opens up more creative possibilities in less than ideal lighting. Take for example bags27's post above. He says he can shoot at 1/8 sec at ISO 3200. (I'd suspect at F1.7) What if he wants to shoot a running child in similar lighting? He'd need at least 4 more stops of ISO. I agree. The Q2 is not the best choice for that situation. I’d be looking hard at the Sony A7RIV if I needed to do that. Sony seems to have the best sensors with the most dynamic range according to DXO Mark. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
solamnus Posted October 17, 2019 Share #131 Posted October 17, 2019 So i used to own the Titanium Q a while back, then sold that to start a Fuji Kit around the X-T3. I realized after 7 months of shooting with the Fuji kit that i missed my Q a lot. Since i was going to loose a lot of money changing again i wanted to think it through really well and started to wonder if i decided to change to get the Q2 right away. I started really analyzing the different aspects of my photography and what my needs really were. I use Nikon on the side as well and any Job i do i usually use that kit, and the other smaller camera would be used as my day to day camera. The Fuji kit became too much of an overlap to my Nikon system. I came to the conclusion that while the weather sealing would be nice, the other "benefits" did not really apply to me that much, not to the extent that i felt i wanted the Q2 after all. There were a few drawbacks i felt also weighed the other direction of not getting it, like weight, the added file sizes, and also that i was eying the Q-P as an alternative, and i liked the look of that camera so much more. So, in the end i decided on a new Q-P i had a discount on. And i am SO happy i went that rout. Its the best looking camera i ever had except maybe my Nikon Df. I love it. Also the spare battery and the new shutter button was some very nice extra features on the Q-P from getting the original Q. I feel like i came home shooting with it, and i hope it will last me a looooong while. For now it really cured any gas i used to have. Couldn't be happier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted October 19, 2019 Share #132 Posted October 19, 2019 I agree about the aesthetics of the Q-P which I. now have, replacing my Q (the Q2 doesn't appeal). But I don't like the feel of the matt black finish compared to the standard Q. Anyone else feel that way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted October 20, 2019 Share #133 Posted October 20, 2019 I love the finish. It makes the camera a lot more grippier, negating the need for a thumbs up. Why don't you like it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OR120 Posted October 20, 2019 Share #134 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) Does Leica still build new Q-P's or are they just selling out old stock. A store near me just got in two Q-P's. The store manager told me they were built 8 months ago. I'm just curious if anyone knows. Q-P's still in production? Edited October 20, 2019 by OR120 sp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted October 20, 2019 Share #135 Posted October 20, 2019 7 hours ago, Mr.Q said: I love the finish. It makes the camera a lot more grippier, negating the need for a thumbs up. Why don't you like it? For general handling, I like to fit the grip anyway. It's just the body texture that slightly bugs me compared to the old Q's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD70 Posted October 21, 2019 Share #136 Posted October 21, 2019 I was next on the list when the local camera store got one in a few weeks ago. Thought about moving up, but decided to keep my Q. So far, it hasn't failed me. On the down side, I used the money for two new Canon bodies, for use at our race track. So much for saving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CherylA Posted October 23, 2019 Share #137 Posted October 23, 2019 On 9/24/2019 at 2:28 PM, bags27 said: Steve Huff just wrote this, comparing it to the original Q: "The Q2 fails miserably in low light" https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/09/19/the-leica-sl2-leaked-here-is-what-it-may-look-like-and-some-specs/ Is anyone else experiencing that? Not my sense from those of you on this site who own one. I was going to post about this. I read Huff's review and it worries me about getting the Q2 as I shoot in low light often. I'm torn between a Q-P and the Q2. I would appreciate any other thoughts on this. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted October 24, 2019 Share #138 Posted October 24, 2019 17 hours ago, CherylA said: I was going to post about this. I read Huff's review and it worries me about getting the Q2 as I shoot in low light often. I'm torn between a Q-P and the Q2. I would appreciate any other thoughts on this. Thanks. I shot an Olympic luncheon recently at the Broadmoor resort. 80 olympians. Peggy Fleming, Bonnie Blair, Dick Fosbury. USA Olympic Royalty. It was very dark in the International Center. I ended up shooting 1/125, f/1.7, Auto ISO. The images ended up from ISO 400-6400. Yes, there’s considerably more noise at the higher ISO’s. However, the noise is well behaved with no obvious banding. I used LR to post process and their noise reduction where appropriate. I had a Q for 3+ years before upgrading to the Q2. I saw banding in the shadows at high ISO in the Q. Not bad, but certainly more visible than with the Q2. Good luck with your decision. I have ZERO regrets about upgrading to the Q2. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted October 24, 2019 Share #139 Posted October 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, Leica Guy said: I shot an Olympic luncheon recently at the Broadmoor resort. 80 olympians. Peggy Fleming, Bonnie Blair, Dick Fosbury. USA Olympic Royalty. It was very dark in the International Center. I ended up shooting 1/125, f/1.7, Auto ISO. The images ended up from ISO 400-6400. Yes, there’s considerably more noise at the higher ISO’s. However, the noise is well behaved with no obvious banding. I used LR to post process and their noise reduction where appropriate. I had a Q for 3+ years before upgrading to the Q2. I saw banding in the shadows at high ISO in the Q. Not bad, but certainly more visible than with the Q2. Good luck with your decision. I have ZERO regrets about upgrading to the Q2. I've seen Leica Guy's (Dan's) photos of this event, and they're terrific. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted October 24, 2019 Share #140 Posted October 24, 2019 not many night shots on flickr... https://www.flickr.com/search/?group_id=4615738%40N21&view_all=1&text=night Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now