Jump to content
Johno

Anyone Else Staying with Q over Q2?

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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= $

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy