mikegml Posted May 28, 2020 Share #1 Posted May 28, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello folks. I had a Q for some months a while back, loved it and miss it (sort of). I sold it due to relatively poor high iso performance. I shoot a lot at high iso, interiors, churches and other dark places, (6400, I don't want or need to go higher that that) I'm on the verge of getting the Q2 but am reading conflicting reports on weather the Q2 is any better or maybe even worse than the Q? What's your verdict on this? I was comparing my Q incidentally with a couple of 24mp Fuji's I had (still have) which definitely bettered the Q even at 1600 let alone 6400. The Q wasn't really bad and with processing was ok but I don't want to get the Q2 unless the improvement if any is noticable. I'm not expecting some massive difference btw. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 28, 2020 Posted May 28, 2020 Hi mikegml, Take a look here Leica Q2 - High ISO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
M11 for me Posted May 28, 2020 Share #2 Posted May 28, 2020 look here: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Leica-Q-Typ-116-versus-Leica-M10-versus-Leica-Q2___1032_1207_1299 Mind: there is a screen and a print view. The screen view ist the pixel view whereas screen refers to all pictures same size which is the only reasonable view. Naturally due to smaller pixels the screen view is not as good with Q2 as with old Q. ut in the all relevant print view the 2 cameras are on the same level with a slight edge towards the Q2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 28, 2020 Author Share #3 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) Thanks. I've seen before the basic specs showing the Q2 has the edge but really I need to see actual high iso (6400) images (I rarely print) to compare. I'm aware of the importance of pixel size to high iso performance and am not surprised the Q2 seems little better than the Q and this for me is an absolute deal breaker. Not saying I wouldn't get a Q2, I still love the Q but it sure dampens my enthusiasm. If anyone here has got actual high iso comparisons I'd be grateful to see them. Thanks Edited May 28, 2020 by mikegml Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted May 28, 2020 Share #4 Posted May 28, 2020 Did you misunderstand now? The indication "print" does not mean that its only relevant for printing jobs. No, on the contrary. Is is as valid when looking images on the screen. It is just meant "all pictures same size". This is the only relevant view. If you take the pixel view that is called "screen" (yes it is misleading) then the Q2 picture is much larger than the Q picture and has more grain. That additional grain disappears when you look at both pictures the same size. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 28, 2020 Author Share #5 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, M10 for me said: Did you misunderstand now? The indication "print" does not mean that its only relevant for printing jobs. No, on the contrary. Is is as valid when looking images on the screen. It is just meant "all pictures same size". This is the only relevant view. If you take the pixel view that is called "screen" (yes it is misleading) then the Q2 picture is much larger than the Q picture and has more grain. That additional grain disappears when you look at both pictures the same size. Thanks. No I understand. I'm not getting sidetracked by the 'print' thing. Although I zoom into 100% like most people I normally view images at a full screen size and know there is an advantage to the Q2s extra megapixels. My requirement is to have better (not much better) high iso performance from the Q2 at normal viewing sizes. Edited May 28, 2020 by mikegml Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted May 28, 2020 Share #6 Posted May 28, 2020 Ok, I see. But you have to be aware that even the Nikon 850 (best in class) is not better. It depends then what your are looking for Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 28, 2020 Author Share #7 Posted May 28, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 25 minutes ago, M10 for me said: Ok, I see. But you have to be aware that even the Nikon 850 (best in class) is not better. It depends then what your are looking for I've had the very best high iso cameras, Nikon D3/D3S/D810 but of course they're nothing like a leica Q/Q2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 28, 2020 Author Share #8 Posted May 28, 2020 Well, I assume I'll be as happy with the Q2 as the Q as I've just bought it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted May 28, 2020 Share #9 Posted May 28, 2020 Nooooo. Congratulation. Did I understand well? You really boughtttttt the Q2? I have it for about 2 months now and would not give it away any more. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 28, 2020 Author Share #10 Posted May 28, 2020 I've had everything or pretty much but the cameras I've enjoyed the most have always been the most simple ones and the Q/Q2 has got to be ultimate for that. I regretted selling the Q really. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted May 28, 2020 Share #11 Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, mikegml said: Well, I assume I'll be as happy with the Q2 as the Q as I've just bought it! @mikegml, I hope you will let us know how you like the Q2, and its image quality at ISO 6400. Not long after I got my Q2, I got a Gitzo GIGT1545T Traveler Series 1 carbon fiber tripod and a Novoflex Magic Ball 50 with socket head specifically for use with my Q2, particularly when traveling. I did a fair amount of research before buying and IMHO, this is the ultimate tripod kit for the Q2 or an M camera system. Both pieces together weigh a mere 3.64 lb./1.66 kg and can support up to 15.4 lb./6.98 kg. - more than sturdy enough for a Q2 or any M camera and M lens mounted to it. This kit is almost 4 lb./1.81 kg lighter than my larger Gitzo tripod setup that I used with my Nikon gear back when I was still shooting with SLRS. If the image quality of the Q2 is not to your liking at ISO 6400, could you use the Q2 with a lightweight tripod at ISO 3200 (or lower) when shooting dark interiors? Just a suggestion... Edited May 28, 2020 by Herr Barnack 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted May 28, 2020 Share #12 Posted May 28, 2020 I owned a Q for 3 1/2 years and now the Q2 for a year. I’d say the Q2 is better for noise 1/2-1 stop. Per the suggestions earlier of looking at equal size prints. What I find more significant is the noise in the Q2 has much less if not completely free of banding when you raise the shadows. It’s just better behaved than the Q and I loved my Q. The Q2 is superior. I also would like to hear your opinion on using the Q2 at 6400 ISO. I almost never do that. I too have a Gitzo 1545T tripod and carry it almost everywhere with me. I prefer ISO in the 100-400 range. 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 29, 2020 Author Share #13 Posted May 29, 2020 Thanks. I picked the Q2 up a couple of hours ago and am playing about with it right now. It feels fantastic. I wouldn't think there was much if any difference in build quality betwwen the two but the Q2 feels a bit more solid and fractionally tighter? I do recall I could 'pick' (as in playing a guitar) the bottom plate on the Q at one end which was a touch loose, nothing serious but I could pull it down a teeny bit with my fingernail. Anyway the Q2 feels totally rock solid and everything works so smooth and slick. That's what you pay for right? I'll let you know how I get on at 6400. I'll maybe do some 12800 shots but to be honest I'm not interested in going there, it's not required. I've never shot anywhere where 6400 wasn't 'shootable'. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakronox Posted May 30, 2020 Share #14 Posted May 30, 2020 I don’t have any shots to compare but I won’t shoot the Q2 at ISO 6400. I don’t even like the noise at 3200. Of course your mileage may vary, but this is just my taste. I ran into the same issue with my D850, so I kind of expected the same noisiness from another high megapixel 35mm sensor. If I have to shoot with higher ISO, I’m going to use the M10, M10M, or GFX 50R. They do very well at 3200 and 6400. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 30, 2020 Author Share #15 Posted May 30, 2020 I don't choose to shoot the Q2 at 6400? The decision is made for me. ln low light situations, tripods not permitted, and no more apertures to play with you find you're pushed in that direction. 6400 is actually pretty good these day even on a Q2. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakronox Posted May 30, 2020 Share #16 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) If it works for you - great. I’m not trying to tell you how to photograph, just stating my preferences. I have Leica and non-Leica cameras that deliver the results that I want and to my taste, better than the Q2 when it comes to high ISO shooting. The Q2’s Summilux is a different story - it’s exceptional. Aaaaaaaaaalmost makes me want to keep it. Edited May 30, 2020 by Anakronox Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 30, 2020 Share #17 Posted May 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Anakronox said: I don’t have any shots to compare but I won’t shoot the Q2 at ISO 6400. I don’t even like the noise at 3200. Of course your mileage may vary, but this is just my taste. I ran into the same issue with my D850, so I kind of expected the same noisiness from another high megapixel 35mm sensor. If I have to shoot with higher ISO, I’m going to use the M10, M10M, or GFX 50R. They do very well at 3200 and 6400. It is not just the camera-there is postprocessing too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakronox Posted May 31, 2020 Share #18 Posted May 31, 2020 6 hours ago, jaapv said: It is not just the camera-there is postprocessing too. Yet the camera does make for easier or more difficult post-processing! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2020 Share #19 Posted May 31, 2020 True... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegml Posted May 31, 2020 Author Share #20 Posted May 31, 2020 12 hours ago, jaapv said: It is not just the camera-there is postprocessing too. Yep, you can noticably inprove the OOC shots to a very good level. (I actually took the Q2 out for the first time yesterday, nothing special, no high iso, no need the weather was beautiful. It was such a pleasure to use, v' impressed with the IQ) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.