A little experiment . . .

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem here is that with a blank background, the two camera/lens combos may do equally OK (for a given value of "OK" - i.e. "driver's license bureau." )

Try to get a portrait with a real background, and using focal length/aperture to separate that background, and see what happens. Even with an f/1.7 lens, the Q2 cropped turns into a "small-sensor P&S," equivalent to a V-Lux Leicasonic.

[pippy]

7 hours ago, T25UFO said:

....both photos taken on our 50th wedding anniversary; well I did say long suffering . . .

 

Missed this bit earlier on. Many hearty congrat's on the Golden Anniversary! Quite the Milestone!

Philip.

Edited February 13, 2020 by pippy

[albertknappmd]

I prefer the first portrait but nice demonstration  of the Q2 potential!

Albert

[mujk]

22 hours ago, pgk said:

The 'problem' here is not the camera comparison nor the fact that one shot is cropped, but that posting jpegs on the forum simply doesn't create an image comparison sufficient to allow for any valid differentiation I'm afraid. Both images look fine and if the object was to illustrate that a crop from the Q2 is still perfectly acceptable on the web relative to the uncrossed image from the M10 then it does just that.

Very true. The funny thing is that sometimes, but only sometimes, the (high) quality of an image is in some way recognisable even in a fairly low-res jpg on the web. But this does not provide for any reliable comparison of images.