Anyone Else Staying with Q over Q2?

[Hazesus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Honestly this Q VS Q2 is only going to hurt Q2 and Q3 sales eventually. Both cameras are great. Let's just remember how the leica SL was hurt by some people simply saying "it's heavy" we don't hear that with their Panasonic cousins. The difference are minor wit the Q and Q2 and not matter what the camera choice you will make it will be a great choice. Right now it only comes down to your budget. If i get a Q2 i gotta up grade a whole brand new computer. And am not ready for that. is about choice. 

What i've read

Q has Poor EVF, No water sealed/dust, Battery life is not good, cannot use 50mm and is Old technology. 

The EVF is just fine and never had an issue and i still don't. it wasn't an issue when the Q came out and of a sudden it is? c'mon

I don't shoot in the rain so dust and water hasn't been in my number one check list when getting a camera, if it was then i wouldn't of had bought the Q in the first place. 

The battery life is just fine!, they also cheaper and lighter to carry with you. 

28mm lens and cropping? we all knew what we was getting in to when we bought the camera right? so not being able to use the 50mm shouldn't be an issue today and i used the 50mm and is just find for web use. 28mm forces you to get closer to your subject. Plus most great photos that i've seen have been on instagram! on a tiny screen phone and iPad.  I see nice photos here but on Instagram and flickr is a different world. So this "you need more pixel" doesn't work on me. 

This is not just a street camera,  i wouldn't pay that much to take pictures of strangers or buildings. I bought it to take pictures of people thats closes to me/ work and this is a great tool  if you use it right you will do just fine. 

The Q1 camera could be old to give new buyers people a good feeling that new is "great" sorry but old technology or not still a great choice and thats what Leica gave us CHOICE. who ever picks the Q2 over the Q will do just fine, that doesn't mean that the Q1 is a poor choice either. 

If i owned the Q2 i wouldn't put the Q1 down because we wouldn't have the Q2 with out the Q1. More and more people are gonna be getting in to the Q1 as prices drop. We should welcome them with open arms not "hey your camera is old".  If anything the Q1 has close to zero issues or bugs, just that photo app. but if you look at page 1 Q2 a lot of issues. 

Side note noticed how i didn't say nothing negative about the Q2. I'll leave that for someone else. 😁

Edited July 10, 2019 by Hazesus

[dancook]

Whenever I visit this thread it makes me ask myself whether I should sell my Q2 ...  been checking out prices of the Q-P.

But this tends to happen when I haven't used the Q in a week, I get fidgety and I start to dream about that greener grass.

[Advertisement]

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

[Overpowered by Funk]

21 hours ago, hdmesa said:

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.

The 50R is a wonderful camera, but it would be like carrying a brick around on vacation. 

[Leica Guy]

Whenever I read this thread and all the negatives, it makes me think rationalization is very active. We seem to need to justify our decisions regardless of what we choose. I agree completely with Hazesus. The Q is a fantastic camera. The Q2 is a fantastic camera. Welcome the new Q buyers and enjoy the new Q2. I’ve stated thIs before: I have zero regrets about upgrading to the Q2. It’s a great camera and not perfect just like every other camera. I chose to maximize the new features and capability and work around the few negatives. BTW, I’ve never thought of it as heavy. Really? The difference is minor. IMHO. 

[Mr.Q]

Weight is highly subjective imo.

I'm not sure if Q owners visit the Leica M forums frequently, but it's quite common for Leica M owners to prefer a 35mm Summicron (255g) over a Summilux (320g) because it's lighter. And a typical complaint is that digital M's have become to heavy. The actual difference between a M6 (585g) and M10 (660g) is 75 grams.

In my opinion, a 94g increase for a compact camera is substantial. Maybe not for people that prefer to add halfcases and grips to their Q, but I keep my cameras naked because I like them small and lightweight.

And I don't get why it's frowned upon to post an honest comparison? I made it clear that my preferences are biased towards how I use them. Everyone here knows that both are great cameras, but the minute differences may be a deal breaker to some. If it doesn't apply to you, great, but I'm not sure why folks feel the need to rationalize their choice by attacking the choice of others. 

[neild100]

I'm staying with the Q.

The Q2 looks great but it would need a new computer to do justice to processing those file sizes along with new backup drives and probably a wait while software versions catch up.

The Q just works for me, if the Q2 works for you then great

Either way you can't go wrong

[pharyngula]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, dancook said:

Whenever I visit this thread it makes me ask myself whether I should sell my Q2 ...  been checking out prices of the Q-P.

But this tends to happen when I haven't used the Q in a week, I get fidgety and I start to dream about that greener grass.

From what I've seen of your work here, you'll make images sing whether captured with a Q, Q2 or an XXX.  Maybe that is a take away message for many of us.

I passed on the Q and my usual tendency to be an early adopter, opting instead to hang on and see what Leica did for a sequel.  It was a long wait. Now that I have a Q2 and been shooting for more than a week, I'm confident I would have been happy with a Q and would now be questioning whether an upgrade would really make a difference.  Not saying I have doubts about my Q2, to the contrary, but whether the choice of one version or another would fundamentally change my ability to pump out better images - doubtful.

[bags27]

1 hour ago, pharyngula said:

From what I've seen of your work here, you'll make images sing whether captured with a Q, Q2 or an XXX.  Maybe that is a take away message for many of us.

+1 

I think this is a large part of it. The Q2's sensor in the hands of a talented photographer can render fantastically well. I think Dan Cook's photos of people get the skin tone exactly right, and I think that iQ2 (the other Dan!) has done brilliant macro photography (not that they both don't do other great things as well). But a lot of people are less interested in the entire arc of photography: measuring and understanding light, depth of field, saturation, dynamic range, etc., both in camera and in post. In some instances, what I've seen from more casual use of the Q2 is over-the-top digitized renderings. In other words, from my own aesthetic perspective, the Q is great for the casual photographer who isn't interested in exploring the technical aspects of photography. The Q2 is a great, but challenging tool for the avid amateur/professional who can handle its extra capabilities. I've seem a lot more "bad" photography (a completely relative and personal judgment on my part) out of the Q2 than out of the Q by many who are (understandably) just interested in taking a photograph. There are some cars that only a skilled and knowledgeable driver should buy, but the casual driver nevertheless buys and misuses or underuses them. Ditto with any elite piece of equipment.

Edited July 10, 2019 by bags27

[Leica Guy]

4 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Weight is highly subjective imo.

I'm not sure if Q owners visit the Leica M forums frequently, but it's quite common for Leica M owners to prefer a 35mm Summicron (255g) over a Summilux (320g) because it's lighter. And a typical complaint is that digital M's have become to heavy. The actual difference between a M6 (585g) and M10 (660g) is 75 grams.

In my opinion, a 94g increase for a compact camera is substantial. Maybe not for people that prefer to add halfcases and grips to their Q, but I keep my cameras naked because I like them small and lightweight.

And I don't get why it's frowned upon to post an honest comparison? I made it clear that my preferences are biased towards how I use them. Everyone here knows that both are great cameras, but the minute differences may be a deal breaker to some. If it doesn't apply to you, great, but I'm not sure why folks feel the need to rationalize their choice by attacking the choice of others. 

I did not mean my comments to be an attack. I could have chosen my words more carefully. Sorry. My post was based upon reading numerous posts critical of the Q2 and IMHO are exaggerated. Emphasis on MY OPINION. I simply find the Q2 to be remarkably good. For me its a substantial upgrade from the Q and I loved that camera. 

[nicci78]

Q is awesome. Except it’s crappy EVF. Yes I always said it since day one. Love the Q anyway. Use it for 4 years with 56,000 photos taken. We can love a camera and be critical. This is what we call love. Don’t need to be blind and shouting over and over that my camera is the most perfect one. Any EVF prone to show tearing and rainbow effect is a crappy one. 

Q2 is awesome. Just the new EVF worth the upgrade. But it is not perfect either. I wish people who bought it before me, told me that it is a little bit slower to use than the Q. That its face detection is crap. And that its high ISO performance is worst than Q. Really I wish I knew before. It would have saved me 2,500 €. 

Anyway, I love using the Q2. No more using the Q with rear screen only like a tourist. Q2 is now a proper camera, used through its EVF.  Battery life is awesome too.

I also love 35mm crop, almost using it constantly. It is like using a M with out of field view. Very nice indeed. It’s just like having a really new camera : a fixed 35mm 30MP one  instead of a fixed 28mm 24MP one.

 

Enjoy both, and do not hesitate to criticised your loved one. 😉 

 

 

[prk60091]

5 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Q is awesome. Except it’s crappy EVF. . . .

 

i do not understand the posts complaining about the Q's EVF.

When it came out it was among the best EVF's on the market.

I get that in 4 years there have been advances in technology and there are better newer EVF's on the market-- but to call the Q's EVF crappy is imho absurd

[Jared]

Even when it cam

1 hour ago, prk60091 said:

i do not understand the posts complaining about the Q's EVF.

When it came out it was among the best EVF's on the market.

I get that in 4 years there have been advances in technology and there are better newer EVF's on the market-- but to call the Q's EVF crappy is imho absurd

Even when it came out it was weak.  The megapixel count was fine (good, even), but the quality of the view was poor.  I got mine after I had been using the SL for a year or so (probably the best EVF on the market at the time), and the difference was startling.  Even compared to the Visoflex, I found the Q’s EVF quite poor.  The color smearing was and is a problem.  The relatively low magnification was annoying.  Being able to see the matting around the “picture” in the EVF always made me feel like I was looking at a TV screen rather than a live image.  I was always trying to move my eye position to get rid of the red and blue halos around text in the view.  It made my eyes tired if I didn’t have everything centered perfectly. 

That being said, the camera still took amazing pictures, and the viewfinder was certainly good enough to accurately compose shots and judge exposure.  But it was never a joy to use.  The Q2 solves that particular problem.  

[nicci78]

No when it came out, it was already one of worst. Because Leica used super annoying LCOS tech from Panasonic. Nobody else were using this bad tech. Other brands already choses LCD or OLED EVF at that time.

LCOS is showing in rapid succession 3 images with its own primary colour : Red, Green then Blue. Each image only had 1/3 of the resolution. They expect that your eyes will be bad enough to get fooled and mixed these images into a high resolution colour image. 

What’s bad : 

if you wander your eyes around the viewfinder finder, you will see colour tearing. 

With certain LED lights. Q’s EVF can go crazy by displaying moving banding. Such as old TV set with bad antenna reception. 

Worst LCOS cannot display directly to your eyes. It has to assemble the 3 images through prims then bounced through several mirrors to your eye. Resulting in quite distorted image  

Unfortunately, Leica is using a very low quality viewing optics. Prone to flare with the Sun. making the EVF almost unusable without a proper shade. 

That’s why Q EVF is crappy. Same period T/TL2/X/M10 Visoflex typ 020 is way better, by using simple LCD panel : no tearing, no rainbow effect. No distortion. No sun flare. 

And SL EVF of the same 2015 year is still top notch today. 

[Voxen]

I really don’t care about the EVF since it’s just a tool for framing to me, as long as it doesn’t lag it can be purple or colour tearing or even black & white. 

[zampelis]

4 hours ago, nicci78 said:

No when it came out, it was already one of worst.

https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/leica-q-typ-116-evf-screen-and-af-page-2

It is interesting how our perception of something new and shiny changes as long as we come in contact with something shinier...

I too believe that there is some colour smearing on the EVF, but honestly I bought my camera a year ago and I was quite impressed with it after having used a Sony RX-100 IV for more than a year. You do need to centre your eye, but there are also advantages.  LCOS technology has no screen door effect as there is essentially no gap between the pixels. And furthermore there is no danger of burning in the screen, something that OLED technology is still prone to... Furthermore, when there is enough light, the frame rate is so smooth and fast.. Cameras like the original X1D 50C for example limited their frame rate to just 37 fps...

The EVF of the Q was quite ground braking when it was introduced. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by zampelis

[dancook]

I liked the Q evf the colours made everything look good. Other cameras were giving me a sharp stark looking view which discouraged me from taking the photo.

Edited July 11, 2019 by dancook

[Mr.Q]

Yeah, the Q1 EVF isn't really accurate with low contrast, but the imperfections gives it character and a retro vibe that pays homage to old rangefinder OVF's. I quite like it to be honest.

[Leica Guy]

21 hours ago, neild100 said:

I'm staying with the Q.

The Q2 looks great but it would need a new computer to do justice to processing those file sizes along with new backup drives and probably a wait while software versions catch up.

The Q just works for me, if the Q2 works for you then great

Either way you can't go wrong

Depending on the computer you have, a new computer may not be required. I have a mid-2011 iMac which I switched out the internal HD to a 4TB SSD drive. I only have 16 GB of RAM. My library is 133,000 photos and I use LR Classic and Photoshop. My system is not blazing fast, but it’s still very usable and I’ve not seen any huge change with Q2 files except it does take longer to import photos due to the slow USB ports. I am planning an upgrade, but I do not think it a must. 

[bullmoon]

Didn't need a new computer, but ours were already pretty substantial as we're used to the large 5D MKIV files and the enormous TIFs created from processing in Photoshop.  I can even process over 1GB ethernet with files stored on a server - although it becomes a little tedious with the 200+MB TIF files in LR Classic.

I thought the Q EVF was really nice when I got it - it was nice seeing the final photo appear very close to what I saw in the finder versus the "surprise" one gets with an optical finder.   The only issue I had was flare from strong light on my left washing it out - I often had to shield it with my left hand with a modified grip technique.  Hoping the Q2 is better in that regard - haven't noticed it yet.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Smoothlander]

I am sticking with my Q.  I also own a M240.  If I were new to Leica and in the market for a Q, I'd definitely purchase the Q2.  Hard to go wrong with either the Q or Q2.