Purchase Advice: Q-P vs Q2

[phernz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Guys,

 

I'm a new member at the forums looking to purchase my first Leica. In a couple of weeks I have a trip to NYC and will be purchasing my new camera at BH. Both Q2 and Q-P are in stock. Was wondering if you guys could help me make a decision since both have pros and cons. I mainly use my camera as an all arounder (lifestyle,travel, family portait, architecture, food, cars, watches, etc) but in a snap shooting style. I'm moving from Fujifilm/Ricoh GR and know that the Q series is the best match for me, I was considering a M10 with 35 summilux but the factor that made me go with the Q is the macro capabilities. I edit minimally my photos and always shoot jpegs. Budget is not a limitation.

 

Would you go with the Q-P or the Q2?

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[mepaca]

If you always shoot jpegs I would suggest staying with Fujifilm and their wonderful jpeg processing. If you are shooting raw then a Q2 is incredible. I would not get a Q camera just for jpegs. I own the Q2 and several Fujis.

Edited December 14, 2019 by mepaca

[Leica Guy]

33 minutes ago, mepaca said:

If you always shoot jpegs I would suggest staying with Fujifilm and their wonderful jpeg processing. If you are shooting raw then a Q2 is incredible. I would not get a Q camera just for jpegs. I own the Q2 and several Fujis.

I agree completely and I’ve owned multiple Fuji’s, a Q and now a Q2 which I absolutely love. Fuji X100 is a great camera for jpeg’s, travel, small. Very fun to use. Just not a Full Frame Q. 

[Trankster]

I agree with these comments. I came from a Fujifilm x100f (which I loved) to a Q2 for the weather sealing, full frame and Leica lens.  There are fewer jpeg settings than the Fuji, but the best results come from raw and post processing. You may also need to update your computer with a fast graphics card and plenty of storage to handle the larger file size.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Trankster

[Siriusone59]

That's a good question and a tough decision. Myself I use a Q and shoot raw plus B&W jpeg.  Most of what I print is the b&w with little processing....unless the colors are the main attraction in the photo then I'll process the raw.  

Look at some reviews and comparison photos between the two and I doubt you'll find much of a difference except for extreme crops where the Q2 will excel.

That being said, the Q-P with the Leica script on top plate really stands out, if that sort of thing appeals to you. So compare them side by side at B&H.  As for me, I wouldn't trade my Q for a Q2, but I might trade for a Q2-P should Leica introduce that model.  Of course you'll hear about file sizes and cameras that do jpegs better but ask yourself why you're considering Leica. Most likely it's because you want that Leica look from your photos and you also appreciate that look in your camera as well.

Which ever one you choose would be a good choice, good luck.

[Marley]

I have the same question as with the OP. If budget is not a limitation, why not get the Q2 specially if buying new. In my Country the price difference is so small between the Q-P and the Q2. Even if you don't factor in the added MP of the Q2, you still get a better OLED EVF, longer battery life, weather proof, which IMHO is better than the Q-P. You only choose the Q-P if the matte finish (stealth look) is the one you really like. 

I am  a jpeg shooter also but from recommendations here I am willing to learn to post process and shoot RAW. You should consider also the workflow because the Q2 would require a bigger storage since it is 47MP compared to the Q-P.  I decided to go with the Q2 😃 Goodluck with your decision! 

 

[Donzo98]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Q2... no question. If you can afford it. A fixed 28mm with a 47mp sensor offers a lot more cropping ability, and makes the camera much more versatile.

I would really try to explore RAW also... you're wasting a lot of the data provided in those files.

[Herr Barnack]

Q2, hands down. 

While the Q-P is $1200 less than the Q2 at B&H, the Q2's 47 mp sensor is easily worth that alone.  Then there's the new Maestro processor, new 3.68 mp electronic viewfinder, image stabilization, longer battery life and weather/dust sealing.

If you need more convincing -

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[nicci78]

If brand new, no reason to buy Q-P 

If used and not too expensive why not. 
Otherwise just buy a new Q2. It is better and future proof. Not sure if Q/Q-P may received any further firmware update. Q2 sure will improve in time. 
 

[microview]

I went from Q to QP and am happy with that. But macro with the original Q is not really as good as many suggest, although close focus gives excellent results. Doubtless the extra MP would help.

[phernz]

18 hours ago, mepaca said:

If you always shoot jpegs I would suggest staying with Fujifilm and their wonderful jpeg processing. If you are shooting raw then a Q2 is incredible. I would not get a Q camera just for jpegs. I own the Q2 and several Fujis.

 

17 hours ago, Leica Guy said:

I agree completely and I’ve owned multiple Fuji’s, a Q and now a Q2 which I absolutely love. Fuji X100 is a great camera for jpeg’s, travel, small. Very fun to use. Just not a Full Frame Q. 

Thanks for the response. I've been shooting Fuji for the past two years now and I've always gravitated for the "standard" jpeg, the other simulations dont really do it for me. I want a Leica for the built and the leica "glow" or look, maybe after getting it I should look into post processing. 

[phernz]

13 hours ago, Siriusone59 said:

That's a good question and a tough decision. Myself I use a Q and shoot raw plus B&W jpeg.  Most of what I print is the b&w with little processing....unless the colors are the main attraction in the photo then I'll process the raw.  

Look at some reviews and comparison photos between the two and I doubt you'll find much of a difference except for extreme crops where the Q2 will excel.

That being said, the Q-P with the Leica script on top plate really stands out, if that sort of thing appeals to you. So compare them side by side at B&H.  As for me, I wouldn't trade my Q for a Q2, but I might trade for a Q2-P should Leica introduce that model.  Of course you'll hear about file sizes and cameras that do jpegs better but ask yourself why you're considering Leica. Most likely it's because you want that Leica look from your photos and you also appreciate that look in your camera as well.

Which ever one you choose would be a good choice, good luck.

Thanks!

 

I think I'll be pulling the trigger for the Q-P since I dont really need the huge files, the most that I would crop is 35, but 28 is my fave. I really want the Leica look and love the Q's simplicity. Guess I would have to experiment with raw and post processing like I used to when I shot Sony, but the reason I moved on from Sony is that I felt I had to do a lot to those files. Is this your case with the Q? I tend to tweak the photos barely (exposure correction, contrast and sharpness) everything else I do in camera ( Jpeg setting to a bit flat). That raw+b&w does sound appealing... 

[phernz]

2 hours ago, microview said:

I went from Q to QP and am happy with that. But macro with the original Q is not really as good as many suggest, although close focus gives excellent results. Doubtless the extra MP would help.

I would use macro for the occasional food and watch photo. Not really a macro photographer here. IMO Fuji lacks a good lens that works all around and has decent macro capabilities like the 28 lux, closest thing is the 16 2.8 but you are sacrificing the bokeh. 

[brunner]

Coming from Fuji, I bought the Q-P. Up to now I do not miss the 47MP and the look and feel of the camera fits me better. But its a personal choice of course.  

[Siriusone59]

2 hours ago, phernz said:

Thanks!

 

I think I'll be pulling the trigger for the Q-P since I dont really need the huge files, the most that I would crop is 35, but 28 is my fave. I really want the Leica look and love the Q's simplicity. Guess I would have to experiment with raw and post processing like I used to when I shot Sony, but the reason I moved on from Sony is that I felt I had to do a lot to those files. Is this your case with the Q? I tend to tweak the photos barely (exposure correction, contrast and sharpness) everything else I do in camera ( Jpeg setting to a bit flat). That raw+b&w does sound appealing... 

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Leicas that are available.  They're all great cameras. And while the more is better folks are correct in their reasons, sometimes more just gets in the way...

You asked if the Q required much post processing...in short no. Like you mentioned I do little correction with mine and that is usually to correct my errors more than the camera's.

[Herr Barnack]

3 hours ago, brunner said:

Coming from Fuji, I bought the Q-P. Up to now I do not miss the 47MP and the look and feel of the camera fits me better. But its a personal choice of course.  

If you want to make big prints, the 47 mp sensor is what you want. 

A 24mp sensor paired with M lenses produces outstanding results up to 16x24 inches in my experience.  24x36 inch prints from a 24 mp sensor (M-P 240 camera) show just a whiff of softness compared to 16x24 but are still excellent in terms of image quality.

The image quality of the final print is contingent upon the skill of the person doing the post processing and the printing; that is a given.

[phernz]

17 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

If you want to make big prints, the 47 mp sensor is what you want. 

A 24mp sensor paired with M lenses produces outstanding results up to 16x24 inches in my experience.  24x36 inch prints from a 24 mp sensor (M-P 240 camera) show just a whiff of softness compared to 16x24 but are still excellent in terms of image quality.

The image quality of the final print is contingent upon the skill of the person doing the post processing and the printing; that is a given.

100% agree with you on that. In my case, no printing whatsoever, maybe small family pictures but 99% for social media and web.  

[phernz]

30 minutes ago, Siriusone59 said:

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the Leicas that are available.  They're all great cameras. And while the more is better folks are correct in their reasons, sometimes more just gets in the way...

You asked if the Q required much post processing...in short no. Like you mentioned I do little correction with mine and that is usually to correct my errors more than the camera's.

I think 24mp is more than enough, files are easier to handle and store. Thanks for the comments on PP.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[phernz]

On 12/14/2019 at 11:04 PM, Herr Barnack said:

Q2, hands down. 

While the Q-P is $1200 less than the Q2 at B&H, the Q2's 47 mp sensor is easily worth that alone.  Then there's the new Maestro processor, new 3.68 mp electronic viewfinder, image stabilization, longer battery life and weather/dust sealing.

If you need more convincing -

 

Thank you for the amazing review!