My Q2 Review :(

[brickftl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, jmschuh said:

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. 

I owned the Olympus EM1 that he says is better than the Q2, and as I expressed in an earlier response, IMO it doesn't come close to the original Q in terms of image quality. Therefore to say that the Olympus image quality bests the Q2 is utterly untrue. Also I always thought the Q was fairly zippy in terms of autofocus, but yes if you're looking for the Q2 to have autofocus as good as the new Sony AF-C including eyeball/face tracking, you're going to be disappointed. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by brickftl

[ChicagoMatthew]

23 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 

You did be interested to hear why the m10 jpegs are so bad. 

[Advertisement]

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

[elopezso]

1 hour ago, ChicagoMatthew said:

You did be interested to hear why the m10 jpegs are so bad. 

I know nothing about the M10 jpegs as I do not own one but I know that i have always worked hard on the settings to get a good jpeg on any M Digital Camera.

As for the Leica q2, read Eric's review at https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2019/03/29/is-the-leica-q2-an-ultimate-camera/.  In it, he talks about his settings.  WhileI do less contrast than he does, I think he is onto something.  

Don't believe me; try it and get back to us!

[Miltz]

6 hours ago, brickftl said:

I owned the Olympus EM1 that he says is better than the Q2, and as I expressed in an earlier response, IMO it doesn't come close to the original Q in terms of image quality. Therefore to say that the Olympus image quality bests the Q2 is utterly untrue. Also I always thought the Q was fairly zippy in terms of autofocus, but yes if you're looking for the Q2 to have autofocus as good as the new Sony AF-C including eyeball/face tracking, you're going to be disappointed. 

“Imagine quality” encompasses a lot of things. I already said the Q2 has excellent color and raw file quality which impressed me. Unfortunately it blows out highlights very easily so you have to underexpose. The EM1 Mark II doesn’t blow out highlights so you don’t have to underexpose as much. And since the shadow recovery is identical on both, the EM1 Mark II has an edge because you push the files less. Also the corners of the lens aren’t in the same league at the 17mm 1.2. Trust me I was surprised too, but it’s a fact. Yes the Q2 has a lot more detail in the center and middle frame as it should. The 17mm 1.2 is just more consistent across the frame at equivalent apertures. Dynamic range is slightly better on the EM1 Mark II, I checked out DxOMark and compared the camera, and what do you know it matches my results. The Q2 is only better at 50 ISO and when I shot a sunset with that and the EM1 Mark II the difference evaporated because I had to underexpose the Q to -2 to get the same sky as the Olympus at -.7. (Olympus was at 64 ISO) In the end the images quality was the same, with a slight edge to the Olympus because the file needed less recovery and the corners where much sharper. The Q2 struggled to focus in the shadow part of the scene where the em1 Mark ii locked in right away. I still think the Q2 is a great landscape camera, as it’s smaller and lighter than the Olympus and the colors are fantastic. The image detail is also amazing for it’s size. That being said if I was a landscape shooter as my source of income I would get the X1D ii as it would destroy the Olympus on every metric of images quality, were the Q2 doesn’t. 

[nicci78]

You would be so disappointed by X1D über slow operation. 

 

[Fedro]

53 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

You would be so disappointed by X1D über slow operation. 

 

for landscapes? I doubt it. It is a fabulous camera for that application and you don't need speed

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am just saying that he is disappointed by « slow » Q2. Which is a very snappy camera. 

So the X1D slow operation will be unbearable. Even for landscape. 

[Mr.Q]

Alright, this is getting out of hand. I had the EM-1 II as well and found the IQ to be no where near the Q, or any other full frame or APS-C camera. Simply put, MFT images lack the tonality and depth that the larger sensors exhibit. They just look flat and lifeless to me. And noise starts to creep in even as low as ISO 400 with those MFT and 1" sensors. 

On the plus side, the Olympus image stabilization was mind-blowingly good, especially when paired with the 12-200. The grip, build quality, and AF performance was also great. But I couldn't stand the controls. So damn confusing I couldn't even figure out how to delete an image at first.... I'm not kidding. It was the polar opposite of the simple Leica controls which never gets in my way. Just grab and shoot. Olympus controls may be great for those that stick to one camera, but for folks like me that own multiple systems, it's a damn nightmare having to relearn all the buttons every other week.  That's one of the main reasons why I decided to opt for Fujifilm as my third system. Even after 2 months in the cabinet, I could take it out and figure out the basic controls in a matter of minutes.

I also briefly shot with a GX8 + Nocticron (great lens) alongside my Q.  I enjoyed that combo a lot better, but in the end, I found the IQ lacking, so I went one step up in sensor size and got myself a X-T2 which I found was my lower limit in compromising IQ for size.

[IzelPhotography]

3 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Alright, this is getting out of hand. I had the EM-1 II as well and found the IQ to be no where near the Q, or any other full frame or APS-C camera. Simply put, MFT images lack the tonality and depth that the larger sensors exhibit. They just look flat and lifeless to me. And noise starts to creep in even as low as ISO 400 with those MFT and 1" sensors. 

On the plus side, the Olympus image stabilization was mind-blowingly good, especially when paired with the 12-200. The grip, build quality, and AF performance was also great. But I couldn't stand the controls. So damn confusing I couldn't even figure out how to delete an image at first.... I'm not kidding. It was the polar opposite of the simple Leica controls which never gets in my way. Just grab and shoot. Olympus controls may be great for those that stick to one camera, but for folks like me that own multiple systems, it's a damn nightmare having to relearn all the buttons every other week.  That's one of the main reasons why I decided to opt for Fujifilm as my third system. Even after 2 months in the cabinet, I could take it out and figure out the basic controls in a matter of minutes.

I also briefly shot with a GX8 + Nocticron (great lens) alongside my Q.  I enjoyed that combo a lot better, but in the end, I found the IQ lacking, so I went one step up in sensor size and got myself a X-T2 which I found was my lower limit in compromising IQ for size.

I mainly shoot with Sony cameras, A7r ii and now a couple of A7riii's. For about a year I also had the EM1 mkii as well. I thought it was a nice enough camera to use but, I also found the menu system overly complex. Over time I got used to it but it wasn't great. The killer for me was poor DR, noise, poor AF tracking and the EVF was terrible. The EVF didn't resemble anything I was seeing with my own eyes. Compared to the A7rii it was very bad let alone the mkiii. This was a constant irritation.

When working with the files the scope for push/pulling highlights and shadows wasn't great. Noise would quickly appear. The lock on tracking was hopeless... it wasn't even like I was trying to follow 100m sprinters, just fell runners/walkers in the mountains and it would just wander off or return soft focus shots.

For me, Sony will be my main work cameras and the Q-P is for my personal stuff but, I'm quickly finding that it acts as a great work camera for the times I'm shooting editorial work and landscapes. I love the organic feel I can get from the files and will use it for paid work when I want that style.

Besides the beautiful build quality, ease of use and incredible optics/sensor combination. I love the Q-P because it's about 650g all in... the weight of a A7riii body. It's a camera that is attached to me all the time and I hardly notice it's there. As they say, the best camera is the one that you have with you.

Edited August 9, 2019 by IzelPhotography

[Jared]

21 hours ago, elopezso said:

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.

Yes, I am one who stated that the out-of-camera JPG’s on the Q2 are terrible.  But I have never played around with different settings to see if it’s possible to rectify that.  It’s never been important to me since the DNG workflow doesn’t hold me back.  But then I don’t have clients breathing down my neck.  It could well be that JPG’s are decent with different settings.  Certainly worth exploring if one cares about or uses JPG’s.

[prk60091]

1 hour ago, Jared said:

Yes, I am one who stated that the out-of-camera JPG’s on the Q2 are terrible. . . .  It could well be that JPG’s are decent with different settings.  Certainly worth exploring if one cares about or uses JPG’s.

By virtue of the fact that you brought this up - you obviously care about it and did nothing to try to improve it "I have never played around with different settings to see if it’s possible to rectify that."  That is not a fair criticism,  

I do not even have a 'horse in this race'  i do not own  a Q2 only the Q .

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by prk60091
typ

[Fedro]

12 hours ago, nicci78 said:

I am just saying that he is disappointed by « slow » Q2. Which is a very snappy camera. 

So the X1D slow operation will be unbearable. Even for landscape. 

I am not sure I understand your point, but I can reassure you that the X1D is definitely not too slow for landscapes as I use it regularly

The Q2 is a great camera for street and other applications, so it is snappier, sure, but this is comparing apples and oranges 

[ChicagoMatthew]

19 hours ago, elopezso said:

I know nothing about the M10 jpegs as I do not own one but I know that i have always worked hard on the settings to get a good jpeg on any M Digital Camera.

As for the Leica q2, read Eric's review at https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2019/03/29/is-the-leica-q2-an-ultimate-camera/.  In it, he talks about his settings.  WhileI do less contrast than he does, I think he is onto something.  

Don't believe me; try it and get back to us!

Honestly, I can’t tell a huge difference between the raw and the jpeg... they are both contrasty. Maybe I’ll change Jpeg settings and see what’s what. 

[photonc]

Sounds like you are trying to justify returning it. It's a specialized camera for certain types of users and applications. Different strokes for different folks. For me it's the best attached lens camera on the market. The Q1 is a close second. I would bet once the prices drop and you look back at the pictures you took with it, you will re-purchase. Enjoy your Olympus, taking photos is all that matters anyway.

[Jared]

20 hours ago, Miltz said:

“Imagine quality” encompasses a lot of things. I already said the Q2 has excellent color and raw file quality which impressed me. Unfortunately it blows out highlights very easily so you have to underexpose. The EM1 Mark II doesn’t blow out highlights so you don’t have to underexpose as much. And since the shadow recovery is identical on both, the EM1 Mark II has an edge because you push the files less. Also the corners of the lens aren’t in the same league at the 17mm 1.2. Trust me I was surprised too, but it’s a fact. Yes the Q2 has a lot more detail in the center and middle frame as it should. The 17mm 1.2 is just more consistent across the frame at equivalent apertures. Dynamic range is slightly better on the EM1 Mark II, I checked out DxOMark and compared the camera, and what do you know it matches my results. The Q2 is only better at 50 ISO and when I shot a sunset with that and the EM1 Mark II the difference evaporated because I had to underexpose the Q to -2 to get the same sky as the Olympus at -.7. (Olympus was at 64 ISO) In the end the images quality was the same, with a slight edge to the Olympus because the file needed less recovery and the corners where much sharper. The Q2 struggled to focus in the shadow part of the scene where the em1 Mark ii locked in right away. I still think the Q2 is a great landscape camera, as it’s smaller and lighter than the Olympus and the colors are fantastic. The image detail is also amazing for it’s size. That being said if I was a landscape shooter as my source of income I would get the X1D ii as it would destroy the Olympus on every metric of images quality, were the Q2 doesn’t. 

You may want to double check what you saw on DXO Mark.  You stated that dynamic range is better at all ISO’s except ISO 50 and that the difference evaporated because you had to underexposed the Q2 to avoid blown highlights.  First, according to DXO Mark the dynamic range on the Q2 is better at ISO 50, 100, 800, and 1600 and only worse at 200, pro, and 6400.  Pretty comparable overall, and I’d actually give the edge to the Q2. 

Second, the Q2 achieves this substantially similar dynamic range (occasionally better/occasionally worse depending on ISO) with 1.5x the linear resolution.  May not be relevant for your particular use case, but hardly a weakness for the Q2.

Third, the fact that the two cameras’ light meters in a sunset scenario choose different EV’s does not change the higher dynamic range of the Q2 at base ISO.  Full well capacity (where you lose highlight detail) is just as much a part of dynamic range as shadow noise.  

I don’t mean to be argumentative, and you are certainly entitled to be underwhelmed by the Q2.  Sounds like the Olympus is the better camera for you.  But please don’t list DXO graphs as evidence to support your contention—Olympus better at all ISO’s except base—when that simply isn’t true. 

[Jared]

10 hours ago, prk60091 said:

By virtue of the fact that you brought this up - you obviously care about it and did nothing to try to improve it "I have never played around with different settings to see if it’s possible to rectify that."  That is not a fair criticism,  

I do not even have a 'horse in this race'  i do not own  a Q2 only the Q .

 

Actually, I didn’t bring it up.  I agreed with someone else who brought it up.  In the last pos, was trying to “own up” to the fact that I don’t use JPG’s, so my comments only referred to the default settings.  

[Ecaton]

And everybody tries to justify their buying/selling decisions....... It's only gear, all are good enough these days. The monkey behind the shutter ought to make the difference.......

[Ronaldraw]

I am considering to buy the Q2 as well but got confused by reading this topic of TS.

Are the issues solved now by the last firmware?

[SrMi]

8 hours ago, Ronaldraw said:

I am considering to buy the Q2 as well but got confused by reading this topic of TS.

Are the issues solved now by the last firmware?

TS?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[i-Leica]

@ Ronaldraw: the most of it... yes - go for it

Edited February 8, 2021 by i-Leica