Anyone Else Staying with Q over Q2?

[Johno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Marley said:

I don’t shoot in the rain so weathersealing is not important to me. I prefer the newer EVF and bigger battery. I can’t get over that If buying new, the Q is with a 4 year old technology. Also a con for me is the 80MB file. I will be watching this thread carefully. 

Sounds Iike a Q2 is best for you. Having more pixels at 50 and 75 mm crop is a very attractive feature.

True that's it's 4 years old, but that doesn't mean it's any less good today than it was then.  The Q2 sensor tests better but the Q has less noise at higher ISOs than the Q2. I'd rather have low noise than more pixels.  And a Q battery is easy to find for $50 vs. $250.

People seem to love the Q. It doesn't seem like people are thrilled about the Q2 after upgrading. 

For someone who hasn't tried the Q there's no basis for comparing user experience with the different control layout. For that person I would suspect they will think the Q2 is a fantastic camera.

Edited July 7 by Johno

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Jared]

On 7/6/2019 at 5:42 AM, Marley said:

Would it be a wise move to just buy the discounted Q or go with the new Q2? I am a newbie who wants to enter the leica system. What do you guys think?

There is no way for anyone other than you to answer this correctly since we don’t know your finances or your values with regard to money.

A few data points that will help you make up your mind, though...

- Lens quality is identical between them

- Handling is close enough to identical that you would only notice a difference if you moved from one to the other; same for menus

- AF performance is very similar between them and is very good though face detect and motion tracking are poor

- Don’t underestimate the improvement to the EVF in the Q2

- Better battery life in the Q2

- Better weather sealing in the Q2 (Leica never claimed any at all in the Q)

- The new chip makes a real difference if you want to crop beyond 50mm, so I find it better, in particular, for informal portraits; unless you are making big prints or cropping a fair amount, though, you won ‘t notice this much

- Storage requirements and things like wireless transfer speed on the Q2 are much more substantial 

It’s a solid upgrade to what was and is a very good camera to begin with.  Are these differences worth the extra cost?  That’s the part only you can answer for yourself.

[beauport]

I bought a Q right after they were released and it has been the most enjoyable camera I've used in over 40 years of shooting.  If I didn't own a Q already I'm confident I'd buy a Q2 for a number of the positive changes already mentioned.  At least at this time, I don't value the changes of the Q2 enough for the cost of the upgrade.  

[Leica Guy]

On 7/4/2019 at 3:21 PM, Jared said:

Nope.  I upgraded to the Q2 and am very happy.  The old Q EVF never worked well for me—I would always see color fringing of the red pixels if my eye wasn’t perfectly centered.  I always worried about the camera in inclement weather.  And the extra megapixels of the Q2 give me more leeway for cropping.  I think it’s a sizable upgrade from the original version.  Only downsides are storage and initial cost. 

+1. I loved my Q for 3 1/2 years. I have zero reservations now that I have a Q2? Its a better camera IMHO in almost every way. It was an expensive upgrade and I’m happy with the purchase. 

[ramarren]

I was never interested in the Q, and had a passing interest in the Q2 for a while. If I were to buy one, the Q2 is what I'd want for several reasons. 

But on further reflection, in the meanwhile the Hasselblad announcements have happened. If I were going to put a large wad of money into another camera right now, the purchase I'd go for would be the CFV50c II back, the 907x body, and an XCD 21mm f/4 lens. That would integrate superbly with my existing Hasselblad V system kit and would prove more useful to me than either Q. 

What the Q/Q2 provides I'll enjoy getting with the CL and my existing lens kit.:)

[camnh]

On 7/4/2019 at 6:02 PM, Overpowered by Funk said:

That's interesting. Why do you use the Q more than the M? Just curious.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I love my M; however lately it's due to travel and traveling light. As I've gotten older I've moved from the Pelican case full of lenses to one or two lenses for a trip. As this was going to be a one lens trip with a lot of outdoor shots, the 28mm on the Q was going to work the best for me.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/5/2019 at 4:07 PM, nicci78 said:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#805,820,ha,f

Please check your facts. GFX-50R without lens is way bigger and heavier than Q2. No comparison really.

Price is around the same for GFX without lens against Q2.

Forgot to address the price part: GFX 50R is $3999 in the US, and the GF 63 standard lens is $999, so exact same price as the Q2.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Marley]

16 hours ago, Jared said:

There is no way for anyone other than you to answer this correctly since we don’t know your finances or your values with regard to money.

A few data points that will help you make up your mind, though...

- Lens quality is identical between them

- Handling is close enough to identical that you would only notice a difference if you moved from one to the other; same for menus

- AF performance is very similar between them and is very good though face detect and motion tracking are poor

- Don’t underestimate the improvement to the EVF in the Q2

- Better battery life in the Q2

- Better weather sealing in the Q2 (Leica never claimed any at all in the Q)

- The new chip makes a real difference if you want to crop beyond 50mm, so I find it better, in particular, for informal portraits; unless you are making big prints or cropping a fair amount, though, you won ‘t notice this much

- Storage requirements and things like wireless transfer speed on the Q2 are much more substantial 

It’s a solid upgrade to what was and is a very good camera to begin with.  Are these differences worth the extra cost?  That’s the part only you can answer for yourself.

You're right! only I can answer my own questions. You summed it correctly in that I value the EVF and bigger battery option. I think it all comes down to timing. When I am ready to buy, would the price diff be of value to me or will it justify the cost of the new Q2? Exciting times ahead for sure. I just hope Leica sorts out its issues with firmware and the fotos app. 

[nicci78]

Q2 is a joy to handle and very fast to use. 

GFX-50R is a handling nightmare and slow to use. 

I know the choice seems hard. But I will never buy the 50R. Ugly as hell 50S has much better handling. 

And GFX not so pancake 50mm f/3.5 will be equivalent to 40mm f/2.8 non stabilised. Not sure how it can compare to Q2's 28mm f/1.7 with OIS

17 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Forgot to address the price part: GFX 50R is $3999 in the US, and the GF 63 standard lens is $999, so exact same price as the Q2.

 

Edited July 8 by nicci78

[Mr.Q]

On 7/4/2019 at 4:18 PM, Mr.Q said:

I had the original Q for 3.5 years and upgraded to the Q2 in March. I've shot nearly 3,000 photos with it, and I noticed how seldom I crop past 35mm which completely negates the need for 47MP.  Weather-resistance and the larger battery I thought would be nice features, but the weight increase is something that's starting to bug me. Maybe it's just in my head, but I feel the Q2 images are a bit more clinical. So I just bought a second-hand Q-P to compare against my Q2. Will report back on which I end up keeping.

As promised, I got my Q-P and I'm reporting back on my thoughts. The Q-P is on the left and the Q2 on the right.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.

Ergonomics and Controls
1. The finish on the Q-P is excellent. The matte finish has a grippy texture to it, which makes it a joy to hold. I probably won't need a Thumbs Up anymore.
2. Although the difference on paper is only 94 grams, (640 g vs 734 g) the Q2 feels substantially heavier, especially when holding with just the right hand.  
3. I think I slightly prefer the buttons of the original Q, ie video button, dedicated ISO and delete buttons.
4. Last but not least, the placement of the thumb wheel on the Q2 is horrible. As you could see in the picture below, for some baffling reason, Leica decided to move the thumb wheel about 6-7mm to the right of the camera. While that difference may seem subtle, it's enough to make one-handed operation extremely awkward. I shoot in aperture priority 90% of the time, and there are times that I do some near macro work (ie food photography, flowers) where I need to move the subject into the frame with my left hand and adjust the exposure with my right thumb. With the Q2's thumb wheel placement, this requires some crafty hand gymnastics to prevent dropping the camera. To make matters worse, the dial is stiffer than the original, and extra weight doesn't help either.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.

So in terms of ergonomics and controls, I think the Q-P wins hands down. The only thing that I prefer on the Q2 is the power on/off switch, but the power switch on the Q-P is bigger and a bit stiffer than the original Q, which makes it much less tricky to change between the 3 positions.

Image Quality- I haven't really tested them head-to-head, but after shooting with both for a while and also browsing through the Image Threads on this forum, I believe that there is a difference in rendering. I don't really have a preference for either, but I do think that the original Q renders a bit warmer and more film-like. The Q2 colors are probably more accurate, but I also have the X1D (soon to be X1D II) which, in my opinion, has best colors of any digital camera. So that puts the colors of the Q2 somewhere in between the Q-P and X1D. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing.

47MP and 80MB files- For how I use the Q2, the resolution is not for printing large. It's for cropping and cropping only. I'm still unsure if the larger files are worth the rare instances that I crop to the 50mm framelines.  The versatility of having 47MP in a fixed lens camera is undeniable though, and that's what makes this decision so difficult for me.

EVF- This ones goes to the Q2 without question. It's bigger, brighter, with a lot more clarity. I didn't realize how poor the EVF of the original Q was until I compared it against to the Q2. Honestly though, I shot with the Q for 3.5 years and never had an issue with the EVF, so I could live without the newest and greatest in this department.

Weather-resistance and Bigger Battery- Like I said in my original post, I like that it's there but probably not at the expense of the added weight.

--------------------------------------

So that just about wraps things up. I'll have to make a decision soon, before supply of the Q2 catches up to demand, as I can still recoup about 95% of the Q2's purchase price. There are things that I prefer on the Q2, but for me, it boils down to that 47MP sensor. 

Edited July 9 by Mr.Q

[Trev]

Me. I bought a used Q-P while waiting on Q2 preorder. 

On notification that my Q2 was ready to ship I cancelled it. Thrilled with my Q-P 

[Matero]

Perfectly happy with my Q and not thinking Q2 anymore. And I've also had some need for the saved money, also. Not bad

[hdmesa]

On 7/8/2019 at 4:51 AM, nicci78 said:

Q2 is a joy to handle and very fast to use. 

GFX-50R is a handling nightmare and slow to use. 

I know the choice seems hard. But I will never buy the 50R. Ugly as hell 50S has much better handling. 

And GFX not so pancake 50mm f/3.5 will be equivalent to 40mm f/2.8 non stabilised. Not sure how it can compare to Q2's 28mm f/1.7 with OIS

 

It's completely justified to compare the Q2 and 50R. Many buyers debate between two very different cameras simply because they are in the same price range and overlap for some use cases. Camera choice is rarely a logical proposition, particularly for cameras in this layer of the stratosphere.

Q is indeed a joy to use and a beautiful camera to behold. 50R/S are faces only a mother could love, but I like the throwback aesthetic and handling.

50R top plate and dial layout is very similar to the Q, and I find no issues moving back and forth between them. The Q menu system is miles better. Autofocus and FPS are slower with the 50R, but it works well enough for landscapes and general vacation photography.

The choice was easy for me to have the Q-P and 50R both. If I had neither and were looking at just the Q2 and 50R, it would be a tougher choice. There are advantages to both and differences to both.

GF 50 will indeed be a pancake lens, especially considering it will cover a 44x33 sensor. Doesn't look like the lens itself will be any longer than the Q lens, though it will be fatter.

[Mr.Q]

I made up my damn mind and decided to sell the Q2.

I realized that the original Q (and now Q-P) was so fun to use because it was liberating to shoot with one focal length. Yes, having 47MP for cropping is versatile, but the shooting experience has become similar to shooting with a zoom lens. I found myself confused by constantly overthinking which frame lines to use, whereas with the Q1 the decision was spontaneous --- I'd move my feet and try my best to compose at 28mm. As a result, I think my results have suffered, but more importantly, shooting with the Q2 has become less fun. Of course, I could forget about the extra megapixels and replicate the way I shot with the Q1, but again, at that point I'd rather not deal with the bigger files. And I prefer the Q1 controls, ergonomics, and weight.

So it's back to the roots. Glad I kept all my PowerExtra and Wasabi batteries 😂

Edited July 9 by Mr.Q

[Marley]

9 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

I made up my damn mind and decided to sell the Q2.

I realized that the original Q (and now Q-P) was so fun to use because it was liberating to shoot with one focal length. Yes, having 47MP for cropping is versatile, but the shooting experience has become similar to shooting with a zoom lens. I found myself confused by constantly overthinking which frame lines to use, whereas with the Q1 the decision was spontaneous --- I'd move my feet and try my best to compose at 28mm. As a result, I think my results have suffered, but more importantly, shooting with the Q2 has become less fun. Of course, I could forget about the extra megapixels and replicate the way I shot with the Q1, but again, at that point I'd rather not deal with the bigger files. And I prefer the Q1 controls, ergonomics, and weight.

So it's back to the roots. Glad I kept all my PowerExtra and Wasabi batteries 😂

But you can just refrain from pressing the crop button right? The original Q also has the crop except that its only upto 50mm. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[nicci78]

@Mr.Q 

you can reconsider after using this Lightroom awesome command : " update DNG preview and metadata ” 

I give it a try upon my 6 TB Lightroom library. It saved me 2TB ! 

This command actually perform lossless DNG compression. Something that Leica only use with higher end bodies, such as M10, SL or S. You gain around 35%

Poor Q, Q2, CL, TL or TL2 users have to rely on huge uncompressed DNG. 

You can also perform for less important images a  lossy DNG compression. By using the command “ convert to DNG “ just tick the option with lossy compression. It’s a fast operation, and size reduction is awesome, without any visual loss. You save around 70%

 

These two tricks convinced me to buy the Q2. Which I really enjoy using. Way better EVF and crispier screen is a must. 

About exposure compensation dial. I was very annoyed first, with its new position. Just stop using the Q completely for one week. Then let your hand trained its muscle memory for the new dial. I guarantee you that you will use the new dial as before without thinking about it. 

Of course if you continue to go back and forth between Q and Q2, you will be annoyed by such weird small changes. 

Edited July 10 by nicci78

[Mr.Q]

34 minutes ago, Marley said:

But you can just refrain from pressing the crop button right? The original Q also has the crop except that its only upto 50mm. 

Yes I can, but once I realized that I actually just prefer shooting at 28mm, the 47MP sensor provides no merit to how I shoot with my Q. For more considered photography (where printing large is a possibility) I have the X1D.

I appreciate the other key improvements on the Q2 as well (EVF, larger battery, weather-sealing) but I don't like them enough to surpass the preferences I have with the Q1 (lighter weight, ergonomics, controls).

So it just makes sense to sell and collect $2,000. Admittedly the decision is personal and I don't expect everyone to understand.

[Mr.Q]

10 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

@Mr.Q 

you can reconsider after using this Lightroom awesome command : " update DNG preview and metadata ” 

I give it a try upon my 6 TB Lightroom library. It saved me 2TB ! 

This command actually perform lossless DNG compression. Something that Leica only use with higher end bodies, such as M10, SL or S. You gain around 30 to 40%

Poor Q, Q2, CL, TL or TL2 users have to rely on huge uncompressed DNG. 

You can also perform for less important images a  lossy DNG compression. By using the command “ convert to DNG “ just tick the option with lossy compression. It’s a fast operation, and size reduction is awesome, without any visual loss. You save around 80 to 90%

 

These two tricks convinced me to buy the Q2. Which I really enjoy using. Way better EVF and crispier screen is a must. 

About exposure compensation dial. I was very annoyed first, with its new position. Just stop using the Q completely for one week. Then let your hand trained its muscle memory for the new dial. I guarantee you that you will use the new dial as before without thinking about it. 

Of course if you continue to go back and forth between Q and Q2, you will be annoyed by such weird small changes. 

Thanks for the tips nicci78.

It's not about saving space on my PC. I just don't need the extra MP's. And I like the Q-P too much to put up with the other 2 major nuisances (weight and thumb wheel) of the Q2. 

I shot with the Q2 for over 3 months and put it through it's paces. It's not a knee-jerk reaction. I just didn't like it as much as I thought I would. I don't regret the purchase because I wouldn't have known without actually using one. I'm glad I didn't lose much money in the transaction.

[nicci78]

I totally understand. Q or Q-P are totally fine cameras. No need to update.

My local Leica store, just told me for the third time, that they got a Q2 available for me. I said before that the Q is fine for me, no thanks. But you know the saying : third time's a charm.

What convinced me : Q2 EVF using similar tech than my CL. I am very prone to see rainbow effect with the Q. So annoyed that I never used its poor quality LCOS EVF. On the other hand, I always use CL awesome OLED EVF.

Today I always use my Q2 OLED EVF. it is bigger, brighter, without tearing/rainbow effect, with way higher quality viewing optics than the Q. 

It just like, I go from a LCD only Q to a EVF + LCD with the Q2. Very liberating. 

Two more reasons. Even though Q2 and CL no longer share the same battery. Battery life improved quite a lot with Q2. Therefore I will live with two different chargers and batteries set.

Anyway now I have two cameras with the exact same user interface. Very easy to use them altogether. Love it. 

 

 

Edited July 10 by nicci78

[Mr.Q]

I understand your issue with the EVF as well. Fortunately my eyes do not see rainbow effects with the Q1 EVF. It's obviously not nearly as good as the Q2 EVF but I can expose and frame properly. For folks like yourself that experience viewing issues, or for folks that want to see the fine details for manual focusing, I could see how the newer EVF can be the determining factor.

We all shoot differently and have our preferences. I'm glad you are happy with your Q2. I wish I could say the same but it didn't work out for me.