My Q2 Review :(

[Gethyn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am really taken with the Q2 dials for Aperture Priority and Shutter Priority.  Something that I have not had since my beloved Pentax 645 NII.

[dancook]

2 hours ago, Gethyn said:

Given all the above useful comments which is a better niche camera, Q2 or Hassy X1D II?

I choose both  80mm 1.9 and Q2 I’m set

[Miltz]

I hope Leica will double down on firmware updates and fixes most of the issues I had with the camera. I would be willing to give it another shot, but I’m not confident they will address all the issues. That being said. I’m looking at a Sony A9II or A7IV, and possibly the next Canon if they can come out with a PRO body. When it comes to the Q2 or X1D II, I would go for the X1D II because the image quality and lenses are superior, and it also feels even better than the Q2.  Unfortunately the X1D II isn’t fast enough for my style of shooting and of course it’s very expensive. The Sony A7R IV shows Sony is listening. The awful grip on the older bodies kept me away, along with the super large lenses. Let’s see what they do with the rest of the lineup. When you’re holding a camera for a long shoot, it has it feel good. If the new ones that come out have a big body the larger lenses will balance better. 

[brickftl]

I think it all comes down to what and how you intend to shoot. Agreed that AF isn't the Q2's strong point, and indeed when I really need to nail moving focus, especially stage work, I turn to my Sony A7iii. I don't agree however that image quality of the Oly EM1 is in the same league as the Q2 since I had and got rid of the EM1. All said, you're probably better off selling the Q2 and staying with the EM1. Yes you'll take a bit of a hit, but better to do that then stay with a camera that you're not happy with and will continue to devalue. I know from experience as I just had to be one of the first people to get the Fuji 50R with some great lenses, and then early on realized I made a huge mistake and so I unloaded everything and rethought what I wanted to shoot and how to shoot. And that lead me to sell my Q and get the Q2. With my A7iii, the Q2 for me is perfect. Thanks for posting your thoughts. I'm sure they'll be food for thought for others who may be on the fence about the Q2. And for any of those people, if you ABSOLUTELY LOVE the original Q, then you will love the Q2 even more!

[helohe]

5 hours ago, Gethyn said:

Given all the above useful comments which is a better niche camera, Q2 or Hassy X1D II?

I recently had the opportunity to play with a X1D II and a Q2. Coming from a leica M the Q2 was much nicer to work with. I did not really like the focusing ring and aperture selection through the menu on the X1D II. The X1D II takes great pictures and there are some nice lenses for it, but in the end the quality/convenience ratio was not good enough. I might try an GFX100 at some point if I find one nearby, however it is also quite a bulky camera. The Q2 on the other hand is nice and comfortable. Perfect travel camera and as I usually shoot wide angle-ish would I do not mind the fixed lens. However as I already have a M10P and am mostly happy with it, would not buy the Q2.

btw the out of camera jpegs are equally bad in the Q2 as well as the M10. leica should fix their jpeg engine they use in the firmware as the RAW's generally give excellent results.

regarding the hassy, I also had an opportunity to play around with a Hasselblad 907X + CFV II, which was absolutely amazing (in terms of a geeky gadget). It is fun to use and looked well made. The back attached to a Hasselblad 500c worked well enough. Can't comment on the image quality as the back was a pre-production beta product. I still would prefer my M over it for size, but as I liked the 500c a lot for film use it is quite nice that there is now a digital system compatible with it and (which should be) reasonably affordable.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, lpeeples said:

 A Leica is all about the joy and art of photography. Taking your time to consider composition and exposure.

Not for me. The Q and any M are tools, and great ones provided one works within their limitations.

I use Leica M & Q (for reportage/documentary) primarily because they are fast, and I know a couple of pros who use the Q as their main camera (one of them Magnum). I rarely have time to consider composition, exposure etc in a leisurely fashion.

I'm on my second Q, and don't have any major issues. It was easy to set up, and the Q's autofocus is blindingly fast in my view, and being able to switch quickly to manual focus is brilliant.

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, dancook said:

I choose both  80mm 1.9 and Q2 I’m set

That would, indeed, be fabulous,

I carried both the Q and the CL with its terrific 55-135 (= ~85-200) together for 2 weeks in California and felt I had virtually everything I needed (also had the equivalent of a 400 mm R mount kit that was either too long or too short, depending, and pretty much left it back).

Edited August 8, 2019 by bags27

[bags27]

2 hours ago, helohe said:

I recently had the opportunity to play with a X1D II and a Q2. Coming from a leica M the Q2 was much nicer to work with. I did not really like the focusing ring and aperture selection through the menu on the X1D II. The X1D II takes great pictures and there are some nice lenses for it, but in the end the quality/convenience ratio was not good enough. I might try an GFX100 at some point if I find one nearby, however it is also quite a bulky camera. The Q2 on the other hand is nice and comfortable. Perfect travel camera and as I usually shoot wide angle-ish would I do not mind the fixed lens. However as I already have a M10P and am mostly happy with it, would not buy the Q2.

btw the out of camera jpegs are equally bad in the Q2 as well as the M10. leica should fix their jpeg engine they use in the firmware as the RAW's generally give excellent results.

regarding the hassy, I also had an opportunity to play around with a Hasselblad 907X + CFV II, which was absolutely amazing (in terms of a geeky gadget). It is fun to use and looked well made. The back attached to a Hasselblad 500c worked well enough. Can't comment on the image quality as the back was a pre-production beta product. I still would prefer my M over it for size, but as I liked the 500c a lot for film use it is quite nice that there is now a digital system compatible with it and (which should be) reasonably affordable.

Were my eyes young enough, I think I'd be an M10 user. I just love the aesthetics of the photos. But I might just be anyway--although not the M10, but rather a film M. Absolutely love what it can do.

[Mr.Q]

8 hours ago, Gethyn said:

Given all the above useful comments which is a better niche camera, Q2 or Hassy X1D II?

I agree with @dancook both is the correct answer   These cameras are toys (not tools) for me and I kept the 2 that were the most enjoyable to shoot with. I settled on the X1D (soon to be X1D II) and Q-P after auditioning the SL, M10-P, CL, and the Q2 the last couple of years.  For less enjoyable shooting (work) I currently use the X-T3 with zooms. Also have a Canon 70D + L zooms collecting dust as a backup.

[thedwp]

30 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

I agree with @dancook both is the correct answer   These cameras are toys (not tools) for me and I kept the 2 that were the most enjoyable to shoot with. I settled on the X1D (soon to be X1D II) and Q-P after auditioning the SL, M10-P, CL, and the Q2 the last couple of years.  For less enjoyable shooting (work) I currently use the X-T3 with zooms. Also have a Canon 70D + L zooms collecting dust as a backup.

I’m currently using an xt3 as well as an x100f. Having previously owned M10’s and a couple of Q’s, I find myself missing the Q the most. 

im considering selling off all my fuji gear and picking up a Q-P. I’m a little concerned about the reviews I’ve read saying the difference between the Q &Q2 (aside from the sensor)...I loved having one cam, one lens. 

[bags27]

50 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

I agree with @dancook both is the correct answer   These cameras are toys (not tools) for me and I kept the 2 that were the most enjoyable to shoot with. I settled on the X1D (soon to be X1D II) and Q-P after auditioning the SL, M10-P, CL, and the Q2 the last couple of years.  For less enjoyable shooting (work) I currently use the X-T3 with zooms. Also have a Canon 70D + L zooms collecting dust as a backup.

Color me very, very envious. When I ran past my wife the possibility of the Hassy, I got a reaction that nearly 40 years of marriage taught me was not a wildly enthusiastic response!

[Overpowered by Funk]

16 hours ago, dancook said:

I've tried to use the Leica Q and Q2 for professional work, but the workflow just remains easier when using my Sony A9 cameras.

For personal use I choose the Leica Q2 every time.

Hey, Dan:

Out of curiosity, what about. the workflow is easier with the Sony – files are files. Or is it a file size consideration?

Thanks!

[Overpowered by Funk]

1 hour ago, Mr.Q said:

I agree with @dancook both is the correct answer   These cameras are toys (not tools) for me and I kept the 2 that were the most enjoyable to shoot with. I settled on the X1D (soon to be X1D II) and Q-P after auditioning the SL, M10-P, CL, and the Q2 the last couple of years.  For less enjoyable shooting (work) I currently use the X-T3 with zooms. Also have a Canon 70D + L zooms collecting dust as a backup.

I LOVE the FujiFilm lineup, but sold all my FF gear and moved to the Q2 for one reason: the pure joy of making pictures with this tool. The only other camera that's been as enriching, from a joy-of-shooting experience for me, is the Epson RD-1.

[Miltz]

You know I was thinking... perhaps the issue is that this camera is using the same CPU from 2015 and Leica can’t do any better with it. I mean they have had almost 5 years to get the most of it. I don’t think they’ll be able to get anymore. I hope the prove me wrong.

[zampelis]

To be honest I don't get the whole drama of the original post.. The sad faces the emotional tone e.t.c. You bought the camera, you tried it, you realised that it does not fit your needs and that another camera fits YOUR needs better and you decided to continue using the old one. Your clients are now happy and you are satisfied. I have just two observations and that's the reason I am posting here. The first one has to do with the tone of your message: you generalise facts and you turn them from subjective to objective. You finished the message stating that the old camera is better than a more expensive new one:

The fact that micro four thirds camera from 2016 has better auto focus, better functionality, the same dynamic range, and shadow recovery as a new $5,000 is pretty sweet. 

I am sorry but most of these are not facts. With the exception of the auto focus bit, all the other statements are clearly subjective, reflecting a limited experience with the Q2, and you pass them as facts. And this limited experience you had with the Q2 brings me to my second point: You spent only two weeks with the camera and you are not committed to spend a bit more time and become a bit more flexible with your shooting style in order to see if in the end  you like it. I understand that you have clients needing instant jpg, e.t.c... Judging from your portfolio though with the wonderful landscapes, I really don't see a reason not to use the camera just as a landscape one, which I believe is more than excellent. You also had a Q from what I can see several years ago.. What did make you believe that the Q2 was a completely different camera? You have read I suppose all the reviews stating the positive and negatives and I would expect, having the experience of shooting with the Q, that would make it easier for you to predict the experience with the Q2. None said that there was any improvement on the auto focus for example which seems to be one of your main requirements. 

But in any case none here knows your needs more than you. If you feel that your 2016 micro thirds camera fits better on your needs, then that's fine.. Just enjoy it.. you don't need to feel sad about it.. And honestly I would strongly suggest you to look into a Sony a7iii as it has amazing auto focus and I am sure that it will probably fit your client needs much better. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by zampelis

[dancook]

4 hours ago, Overpowered by Funk said:

Hey, Dan:

Out of curiosity, what about. the workflow is easier with the Sony – files are files. Or is it a file size consideration?

Thanks!

Two cameras the same, usability and file processing streamlined

flippy screen shooting and continuous eye af which are hugely beneficial for weddings

huge buffer on a9 for sweat free confetti shot

I have more batteries for Sony, find myself taking Q2 charger just in case which adds stress finding points

filling up cards too quickly with Q2

 

-

I've quickly gotten comfortable with 24 1.4 and 50 1.4 combo

Wedding Sample Gallery

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by dancook

[Mr.Q]

5 hours ago, thedwp said:

I’m currently using an xt3 as well as an x100f. Having previously owned M10’s and a couple of Q’s, I find myself missing the Q the most. 

im considering selling off all my fuji gear and picking up a Q-P. I’m a little concerned about the reviews I’ve read saying the difference between the Q &Q2 (aside from the sensor)...I loved having one cam, one lens. 

Yeah, the Q has been the only constant through my recent stretch of GAS and camera switching. 10+ cameras and 4+ years later, I still shoot 60-70% of my photos with the Q-P. 
 

5 hours ago, bags27 said:

Color me very, very envious. When I ran past my wife the possibility of the Hassy, I got a reaction that nearly 40 years of marriage taught me was not a wildly enthusiastic response!

My wife thinks Hasselblad is a Chinese manufacturer, which is inaccurate but isn't completely false either lol

 

4 hours ago, Overpowered by Funk said:

I LOVE the FujiFilm lineup, but sold all my FF gear and moved to the Q2 for one reason: the pure joy of making pictures with this tool. The only other camera that's been as enriching, from a joy-of-shooting experience for me, is the Epson RD-1.

Agreed. Love the Q.

[jmschuh]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb zampelis:

To be honest I don't get the whole drama of the original post.. The sad faces the emotional tone e.t.c. You bought the camera, you tried it, you realised that it does not fit your needs and that another camera fits YOUR needs better and you decided to continue using the old one. Your clients are now happy and you are satisfied. I have just two observations and that's the reason I am posting here. The first one has to do with the tone of your message: you generalise facts and you turn them from subjective to objective. You finished the message stating that the old camera is better than a more expensive new one:

The fact that micro four thirds camera from 2016 has better auto focus, better functionality, the same dynamic range, and shadow recovery as a new $5,000 is pretty sweet. 

I am sorry but most of these are not facts. With the exception of the auto focus bit, all the other statements are clearly subjective, reflecting a limited experience with the Q2, and you pass them as facts. And this limited experience you had with the Q2 brings me to my second point: You spent only two weeks with the camera and you are not committed to spend a bit more time and become a bit more flexible with your shooting style in order to see if in the end  you like it. I understand that you have clients needing instant jpg, e.t.c... Judging from your portfolio though with the wonderful landscapes, I really don't see a reason not to use the camera just as a landscape one, which I believe is more than excellent. You also had a Q from what I can see several years ago.. What did make you believe that the Q2 was a completely different camera? You have read I suppose all the reviews stating the positive and negatives and I would expect, having the experience of shooting with the Q, that would make it easier for you to predict the experience with the Q2. None said that there was any improvement on the auto focus for example which seems to be one of your main requirements. 

But in any case none here knows your needs more than you. If you feel that your 2016 micro thirds camera fits better on your needs, then that's fine.. Just enjoy it.. you don't need to feel sad about it.. And honestly I would strongly suggest you to look into a Sony a7iii as it has amazing auto focus and I am sure that it will probably fit your client needs much better. 

Thank you very much for your words. You have written and expressed exactly what my thoughts on the written experiences are.

What I do not understand is the following: If someone already had a Leica Q, how can he come to the conclusion with the Leica Q2 that it is not the right camera for his own way of working? That's not believable.

You can always compare two cameras with each other and find out, especially with such different camera concepts, that one is better suited than the other. And that has hardly anything to do with the age of the camera.

Comparing a Leica Q2 to an MFT camera is comparing apples to oranges. As a Leica Q and Q2 owner, I borrowed an MFT camera a few days ago to take pictures for a few days. The image quality wasn't what I had in mind for low light in my eyes. Therefore I decided against MFT, because it is not usable for me and doesn't fit into my concept. But I wouldn't get the idea to write in an Olympus or Panasonic forum what's not so great about this MFT camera.

In view of the fact that there was already a lot of experience with the Leica Q before, which in none of the aspects described behaves differently than a Leica Q2, I ask myself about the motivation and the whole thing gets the taste of Leica bashing with the final statement that a 3 year old MFT camera is much better than a brand new, more expensive Leica Q2. 

Everyone should simply be happy with the camera that he enjoys the most.

[elopezso]

17 hours ago, helohe said:

 

btw the out of camera jpegs are equally bad in the Q2 as well as the M10. leica should fix their jpeg engine they use in the firmware as the RAW's generally give excellent results.

 

I keep hearing about how bad the jpegs are in the q2 but folks should take a look at Eric Kim's review of the Leica and his suggested settings.  I think with his settings, the Leica Q2s jpegs look pretty nice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[brickftl]

14 hours ago, zampelis said:

I really don't see a reason not to use the camera just as a landscape one, which I believe is more than excellent.

totally agree, the Q2 is the perfect landscape camera, especially when hiking!