Leica Q 116 or Leica Q2?

[bonlux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you could choose between a Leica Q (116), which is a bargain, or a Leica Q2, what would you choose? I know, this is 1st world problem.....

Thank you for your input

[Jared]

48 minutes ago, bonlux said:

If you could choose between a Leica Q (116), which is a bargain, or a Leica Q2, what would you choose? I know, this is 1st world problem.....

Thank you for your input

No way for us to tell you whether the Q2 I would be worth the money for you.  Don’t know how much of a strain the extra cash would be or whether the improvements in the Q2 are relevant for your photography.  All we can do is list the differences:

Q2 viewfinder is noticeably better

Q2 is more weather sealed

Q2 has better battery life

Q2 has more megapixels which makes the crop modes significantly more useable 

on the downside, Q2 is heavier and the placement of the thumb wheel is less ergonomic.

The lens is the same in both.  High ISO performance is similar (not per pixel, but at a similar viewing distance/print size).  

I find the viewfinder and weather sealing justify the additional cost.  Reasonable people might disagree.

[Donzo98]

2 hours ago, bonlux said:

If you could choose between a Leica Q (116), which is a bargain, or a Leica Q2, what would you choose? I know, this is 1st world problem.....

Thank you for your input

What’s the bargain price??

[MikeD70]

I had the same problem.  I really liked the idea of a weather proof camera,( tested it regularly with my Fuji's) the enormous file size screamed unlimited crop choices, but, the camera is as rare as a unicorn in the real world.  Then I found a "like new" Q for $2,400 and grabbed it.  I posted some shots on this forum of the crop capabilities, it does not disappoint.  I will be sticking with the original Q for a long while, for me, it's perfect. I'll just keep it out of the rain.   If you find one at or under the $3,000. mark, I think you will love it.

[Leica Guy]

The decision criteria for me was sensor resolution and general ergonomics. In spite of the thumb wheel being slightly less accessible, emphasis on slight, the added thumb wheel button that’s customizable is a big plus. So far, the 47MP sensor allows sufficiently greater post processing cropping to make a difference. Its reported that there’s slightly more noise on the Q2, but I’ve not seen any real difference that I can discern. The bigger battery is a definite improvement. I can go all day now and hundred photos and half half battery left. The other side of the equation for me its a several thousand  dollar upgrade by the time you but accessories. It was worth it to me. 

[bonlux]

5 hours ago, Donzo98 said:

What’s the bargain price??

The bargain price is 2'500 Euro (or around 2'800 US$) for the kakhi version

[bonlux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank to everybody for your insight and comments. The 47MP sensor and the bigger battery is for sure a plus. The sealed option does not really count that much to me, as I use to be a good weather "photographer", on the other hand you may never know.

The good thing is both are available at the same shop (Germany) and I have no accessories, so that I would have to start from scracht, no additional costs on this side.

[jsz]

I am in the same boat as you. As I wait for my pre-order to finally come through I am weighing the pros and cons. For me, it is between a q-p and a q2. I like the weather sealing because I will be taking the camera around the world and in some countries there are lots of rain which will give me some peace of mind. I am not entirely a big fan of the bigger files as I am just a casual photographer and don't do serious cropping but that might change as I get more into photography. Everything about the q2 is more expensive from the batteries to the sd cards so that is the main thing causing me to second guess. The poorer performance at high ISO is also something causing me to watch countless videos of comparisons. 

[Mr.Q]

5 hours ago, jsz said:

Everything about the q2 is more expensive from the batteries to the sd cards so that is the main thing causing me to second guess. 

If you are on a budget, the above quote is important to note. Don't forget that there are no third-party alternatives for the Q2/SL batteries that cost $250.  So if you are looking to purchase 2 spares, you are looking at $500 for Q2 batteries, versus $50 for 2 spare Wasabi batteries for the Q including a dual charger.

In my opinion, the Q2 is not worth it unless you absolutely NEED the 47MP resolution. Everything else on the Q2 are a mixed bag --- a combination of improvements and setbacks --- and not really a determining factor imo.

[Donut]

The thing is the Q was really designed for street and documentary work. In that context the 47MP sensor of the Q2 makes very little sense.

24MP is plenty for street. I've printed 14x24 and larger at 24MP - some of them cropped to 15MP - all with good results. The only difference 47MP makes for this kind of work is a massive increase in camera and file storage costs, and as been covered here, no tangible improvements in buffering, ISO, and dynamic range.  

I understand the desire for more megapixels for landscape, architecture, and very high end fashion work, but not for the kind of photography that is best suited for. Of course there's nothing stopping you from using the Q2 for these kind of shots, but an interchangeable lens system would make more sense. 

I'd have been much happier if Leica had kept with a 24MP and allow the new generation of tech to provide more discernable improvements in ISO, buffer etc. 

A 47MP+ SL2 makes perfect sense given that it is Leica's multi tool pro line. But the Q2 is a little perplexing and I do fear for the M11.

 

 

[jcraf]

4 minutes ago, Donut said:

The thing is the Q was really designed for street and documentary work. In that context the 47MP sensor of the Q2 makes very little sense.

24MP is plenty for street. I've printed 14x24 and larger at 24MP - some of them cropped to 15MP - all with good results. The only difference 47MP makes for this kind of work is a massive increase in camera and file storage costs, and as been covered here, no tangible improvements in buffering, ISO, and dynamic range.  

I understand the desire for more megapixels for landscape, architecture, and very high end fashion work, but not for the kind of photography that is best suited for. Of course there's nothing stopping you from using the Q2 for these kind of shots, but an interchangeable lens system would make more sense. 

I'd have been much happier if Leica had kept with a 24MP and allow the new generation of tech to provide more discernable improvements in ISO, buffer etc. 

A 47MP+ SL2 makes perfect sense given that it is Leica's multi tool pro line. But the Q2 is a little perplexing and I do fear for the M11.

 

 

+1. I've said it elsewhere on the Forum, but I feel that Leica maybe missed a trick not keeping the Q in production alongside the Q2.  Or put it another way, maybe Leica could have upgraded the 116 with the Q2 body refinements.  It's a familar scenario with other manufacturers who have families of products, albeit with sensor differences and a few other minor things (qv, the Nikon Z series, and Sony).

My take on all of this is that Leica, being tiny, does not have the production capacity for this diversity.

I have no need for a Q2 with 47mp, fine camera that it is, with all that entails for my image processing chain.

[Fedro]

4 hours ago, Donut said:

The thing is the Q was really designed for street and documentary work. In that context the 47MP sensor of the Q2 makes very little sense.

24MP is plenty for street. I've printed 14x24 and larger at 24MP - some of them cropped to 15MP - all with good results. The only difference 47MP makes for this kind of work is a massive increase in camera and file storage costs, and as been covered here, no tangible improvements in buffering, ISO, and dynamic range.  

I understand the desire for more megapixels for landscape, architecture, and very high end fashion work, but not for the kind of photography that is best suited for. Of course there's nothing stopping you from using the Q2 for these kind of shots, but an interchangeable lens system would make more sense. 

I'd have been much happier if Leica had kept with a 24MP and allow the new generation of tech to provide more discernable improvements in ISO, buffer etc. 

A 47MP+ SL2 makes perfect sense given that it is Leica's multi tool pro line. But the Q2 is a little perplexing and I do fear for the M11.

 

 

I am totally with you - I think that 24 MP is good, a small bump would be ok (i.e. 30-36) but 50 MP would be overkill

For the Q I feel the same (and I have the Q2)

Edited August 7, 2019 by Fedro

[Smoothlander]

The good news is..... I don't think you can go wrong with either Q or Q2.  I love my Q and M240 and neither is showing signs of falling behind.

[dusuacangmong]

Go Q if you have tight budget ( ~3000$), in my country you could find very cheap one with 2600$, used in good condition.

[Voxen]

Even though I can afford a Q2 I stick with my good old Q because 24 megapixels is well enough, I have no use for 47 megapixels and if it was justified for insane cropping reason then I’d stop calling myself a photographer. No offense to those who enjoy cropping, it’s just a personal feeling.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Voxen

[bonlux]

Thank you to everybody for your thoughts, I think I will go for the Q 116 with the Kakhi special edition. 

[blen]

29 minutes ago, bonlux said:

Thank you to everybody for your thoughts, I think I will go for the Q 116 with the Kakhi special edition. 

Good choice! Enjoy!

[albertknappmd]

go with the Q and save the money.... 

If you really adore the Q you could always upgrade later on..

Albert

 

[nicci78]

Q face detect is way better than Q2

If at bargain price, I will choose the Q. 

Kind of regret upgrading to Q2. Fine camera, but Q is already perfect.

No video button, awkward thumb wheel, über expensive battery and defective face detect AF. Makes the Q2 not as sweet as you may think

But weather sealing, way better EVF and excellent very high resolution. Makes Q2 quite irresistible.

Choice is tough. But really no bad choice either way. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Viv]

My decision was to stay with the Q.

This does not stop me dreaming of a Q with a fast 35 mm lens and the viewfinder from the Q2 ...