47 MP ?

[IanW55]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently have a Q and I don't print large prints, if any, but I'm constantly nagged by the thought of buying a Q2. I've read as much as I can find about the usefulness of 47 MP and the consensus of opinion seems to be that there is no visible difference between 24 MP & 47 MP.
I respect the views I've read but there does seem to me to be something about the images I've seen from the Q2. Many seem to have smoother tonal/colour gradation. I have been unable to find examples of pairs of images from the Q & Q2 from which to make a direct comparison. Is anyone able/willing to provide me with raw files of the same subject shot at the same settings from the two cameras ?

regards

Ian

[stuny]

I'm anxious to see what our members say here - I'm still on the first generation Q.

[Advertisement]

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

[nico4444]

2 hours ago, IanW55 said:

I don't print large prints, if any,

 

Do you print at all? Then, why are you looking at the Q2 over the Q?

[IanW55]

I don't print, though I may in the future. One thing I'm not sure about is how many MP are needed to maintain on-screen quality with the likelihood of me getting a 5K Mac in the near future.

There are other aspects to the Q2 which attract me but I'm interested in satisfying myself that the increased resolution would not be visible in the on-screen images.

[nico4444]

The Q's and Q2's maximum resolution are 6000x4000 and 8368x5584 respectively at an aspect ratio of 3:2, whereas a 5K Mac display has a 5120x2880 resolution at a 16:9 aspect ratio. Both sensors have sufficient resolution on fullscreen, but obviously you can crop Q2's images harder and still retain enough resolution. It all comes down to what your use is for the extra resolution. You don't print, so I am assuming your work depend on digital image, so the Q2 would make sense, although it would definetely not be my first choice for professional work.

You haven't specified how photography gear pertains to you, but if you do nothing with your images outside of looking at them through a monitor, then the Q2 is not a good choice financially and in terms of fidelity.

 

[IanW55]

I am not a professional but over the thirty plus years I've been interested in photography I've always tried to achieve the highest IQ I could and then if the pics are not very good it's my fault not the machinery.

Fortunately the financial side doesn't matter to me very much. 

[nico4444]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, IanW55 said:

if the pics are not very good it's my fault not the machinery.

You are answering yourself.

Image quality comparison between Q and Q2 is difficult to report, because they are that similar/identical and only those looking through a professional monitor, such as Apple's Pro Display XDR, can actually tell us the incredibly miniscule differences. Prints would also be a good way to infer the differences.

33 minutes ago, IanW55 said:

I've always tried to achieve the highest IQ I could....Fortunately the financial side doesn't matter to me very much.

The Fuji GFX 50(R/S) and Hasselblad X1D (II) have 51 MP and the advatanges of digital medium format, so you would look at those cameras if you want to achieve higher image fidelity.

[LocalHero1953]

Tangentially.........I recently switched from the SL to the SL2, which probably have the same/similar sensors as the Q/Q2. I have photographed a particular location with both cameras, printing at A4 size. There is no way I can distinguish the two cameras at that size, and I doubt I would at A3. Nor have I been able to distinguish a difference on screen at full resolution; that is less relevant, though, as my Dell 27" is 'only' 2560x1440. So, image per image at full frame, and given the comments of others about the 5k Mac, I doubt you would notice a difference. You will notice a difference, obviously, if (a) you print large enough or (b) you crop viciously.

As for (b), this will always be a problem for photographers with GAS until we have cameras with infinite resolution - you will always want to crop to a degree slightly higher than your screen can handle😉.

In my photography of the same location, I took many shots with the SL, in some of which I later decided there was a better shot waiting to come out, if only I had selected just a small part of the scene. But this irritated the hell out of me, so I went back and reshot the scene with the correct framing with the SL2. I got that scene in wastefully high resolution, but I actually got the framing and perspective right to start with, which was much more satisfactory, and visible. Excessive cropping usually leads (IMO) to unsatisfactory perspective and foreshortening. Which is why I am not convinced by the concept of the Q/Q2 - but that's another story!

[antigallican]

I use a 5k imac and I have an M9, Q and SL. I never run out of quality on the screen, even in modest crops. I can print A3+ from the M9 on my Canon pixma pro 10S and the print stands up to magnifier examination. We're way past the need for more megapixels. Of course, what you want from a camera may make you change, but that's not the same as real world achievable image quality, which all the cameras mentioned in this thread have by the bucket load

[IanW55]

Thanks for your thoughts which go some way to answering my questions. I am very happy with my Q, in fact, having had Canon, Olympus, Hasselblad and Leica cameras, film and digital I can say the Q is my favourite camera. 
I rarely crop to any great extent other than to crop to square format. I prefer to do my framing in camera.
So it sounds from your comments that the reasons to get a Q2 rest with other aspects of the camera, not MP which really reinforces what I've read elsewhere.

I'll have to live with my GAS!

Edited October 7, 2020 by IanW55

[Jared]

19 hours ago, IanW55 said:

I currently have a Q and I don't print large prints, if any, but I'm constantly nagged by the thought of buying a Q2. I've read as much as I can find about the usefulness of 47 MP and the consensus of opinion seems to be that there is no visible difference between 24 MP & 47 MP.
I respect the views I've read but there does seem to me to be something about the images I've seen from the Q2. Many seem to have smoother tonal/colour gradation. I have been unable to find examples of pairs of images from the Q & Q2 from which to make a direct comparison. Is anyone able/willing to provide me with raw files of the same subject shot at the same settings from the two cameras ?

regards

Ian

24 megapixels are ample for the vast majority of uses if you are not cropping. That resolution will allow tack sharp images to be printed up to 13” x 20” with no interpolation. It will comfortably support a 5k display. Obviously, it is complete overkill for social media.

However, the Q/Q2 is a fixed lens camera with a relatively wide 28mm native perspective. A lot of people find themselves cropping to get a 35mm, 50mm, or even a 75mm perspective. This is where the extra megapixels come in handy on the Q2. I just made a 10” by 13” print for display in a gallery of a (roughly) 70mm crop from my Q2 and the image holds up very well indeed. I wouldn’t quite have been able to do that with the Q.

End result? While I wouldn’t worry all that much about the extra megapixels in a camera with a zoom lens or a camera that allows different lenses to be swapped in and out, for something like the Q2 it’s more of a benefit. Luckily, the lens is good enough to support all those pixels even wide open.

As to the images being noticeably better on the Q2 just because of the megapixels...Nah. Tonal gradations are no better in the newer camera. Get the Q2 if you care about any of the following:

- Cropping

- Cool “home” screen that gives you access to most commonly used menu items

- Weather proofing

- Bigger/better battery without a flimsy door that is prone to being snapped off

- Better resale value down the road

-Better EVF (this was actually the clincher for me—hated the EVF in the original Q as it tended to blur RGB pixels if your eye wasn’t perfectly centered in the viewfinder.

If the above billet points aren’t important for your uses, the Q was and remains a fantastic camera.

[nico4444]

On 10/8/2020 at 5:24 AM, Jared said:

24 megapixels are ample for the vast majority of uses if you are not cropping. That resolution will allow tack sharp images to be printed up to 13” x 20” with no interpolation. It will comfortably support a 5k display. Obviously, it is complete overkill for social media.

However, the Q/Q2 is a fixed lens camera with a relatively wide 28mm native perspective. A lot of people find themselves cropping to get a 35mm, 50mm, or even a 75mm perspective. This is where the extra megapixels come in handy on the Q2. I just made a 10” by 13” print for display in a gallery of a (roughly) 70mm crop from my Q2 and the image holds up very well indeed. I wouldn’t quite have been able to do that with the Q.

End result? While I wouldn’t worry all that much about the extra megapixels in a camera with a zoom lens or a camera that allows different lenses to be swapped in and out, for something like the Q2 it’s more of a benefit. Luckily, the lens is good enough to support all those pixels even wide open.

As to the images being noticeably better on the Q2 just because of the megapixels...Nah. Tonal gradations are no better in the newer camera. Get the Q2 if you care about any of the following:

- Cropping

- Cool “home” screen that gives you access to most commonly used menu items

- Weather proofing

- Bigger/better battery without a flimsy door that is prone to being snapped off

- Better resale value down the road

-Better EVF (this was actually the clincher for me—hated the EVF in the original Q as it tended to blur RGB pixels if your eye wasn’t perfectly centered in the viewfinder.

If the above billet points aren’t important for your uses, the Q was and remains a fantastic camera.

these are not deciding factors to get the Q2 and most of them are very objective without any valid explanation. Your example of cropping the image is exceedingly rare in actual usages of the camera. Who in the right mind purchases a camera this expensive with the intent of cropping images that often?

[ianforber]

I crop quite a lot and quite frequently. Did it with film. Do it with digital. Just me I guess!

[nico4444]

1 hour ago, ianforber said:

I crop quite a lot and quite frequently. Did it with film. Do it with digital. Just me I guess!

You took my comment slightly out of context because I messed up my phrasing. Jared uses crops and the high MP retain sufficient resolution for fine art prints, but this use case does not apply to OP.

However, I still stand by my sentiment about cropping images from the Q2. I can't get behind getting a fixed 28mm with a large sensor with the intent to crop all the time to patch up sloppy compositions. This is one of my personal reasons why I highly dislike the Q2.

[Jared]

4 hours ago, nico4444 said:

You took my comment slightly out of context because I messed up my phrasing. Jared uses crops and the high MP retain sufficient resolution for fine art prints, but this use case does not apply to OP.

However, I still stand by my sentiment about cropping images from the Q2. I can't get behind getting a fixed 28mm with a large sensor with the intent to crop all the time to patch up sloppy compositions. This is one of my personal reasons why I highly dislike the Q2.

Well, I certainly agree that a "limitless" supply of resolution / cropping ability can lead to some sloppy habits if one is not careful. The same is true for a zoom lens. If you use the ability to crop or the ability to zoom as a substitute for finding the right perspective for the image and putting yourself where you can capture that perspective you will necessarily have weaker photos.  However, the simple fact that one chooses to crop an image (or a lot of images) is not an indication of sloppy compositions, any more than the fact someone used a zoom to frame a subject is necessarily an indication of a sloppy composition.  What is important, regardless of what lens one has, is to ask whether this is the best composition possible with the lens(es) available. That may or may not involve cropping the image, just as it may or may not involve zooming if you have a zoom.  No difference, really, except that cropping tends to degrade image quality more than zooming. 

[KenBennett]

5 hours ago, nico4444 said:

However, I still stand by my sentiment about cropping images from the Q2. I can't get behind getting a fixed 28mm with a large sensor with the intent to crop all the time to patch up sloppy compositions. This is one of my personal reasons why I highly dislike the Q2.

But isn't this ability one of Leica's prime selling points for the Q2? They even have a little button that shows frame lines for 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm equivalent fields of view. The camera is essentially designed with the idea of shooting with a 28mm lens and cropping the result. 

[nico4444]

1 hour ago, Jared said:

No difference, really, except that cropping tends to degrade image quality more than zooming. 

What about the different perspectives from different focal lengths? Please tell me I’m reading it wrong, because from what I understand from your post, an image from a, let’s say, 75mm focal length lens would be equal to a 28mm frame cropped to 75mm, which is untrue. What’s wrong with using a zoom lens to achieve the desired composition? You find your composition and use the desired focal length with the zoom lens to achieve the perspective you are looking for. How is that at all comparable to cropping? You can crop in at 75mm frame lines, but you do not get the 75mm perspective.

 

50 minutes ago, KenBennett said:

But isn't this ability one of Leica's prime selling points for the Q2? They even have a little button that shows frame lines for 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm equivalent fields of view. The camera is essentially designed with the idea of shooting with a 28mm lens and cropping the result. 

I hard disagree on this. Leica marketed the Q2 as high MP camera with the ability to crop in without too much of a loss in resolution and I guess a lot of people fell for it, because if you wanted to achieve consistent IQ at different focal lengths, you would get the SL + 24-90 and not a Q2 with crops, which I think is a sad way to use the camera.

Edited October 11, 2020 by nico4444

[Jared]

1 hour ago, nico4444 said:

What about the different perspectives from different focal lengths? Please tell me I’m reading it wrong, because from what I understand from your post, an image from a, let’s say, 75mm focal length lens would be equal to a 28mm frame cropped to 75mm, which is untrue. What’s wrong with using a zoom lens to achieve the desired composition? You find your composition and use the desired focal length with the zoom lens to achieve the perspective you are looking for. How is that at all comparable to cropping? You can crop in at 75mm frame lines, but you do not get the 75mm perspective.

 

I hard disagree on this. Leica marketed the Q2 as high MP camera with the ability to crop in without too much of a loss in resolution and I guess a lot of people fell for it, because if you wanted to achieve consistent IQ at different focal lengths, you would get the SL + 24-90 and not a Q2 with crops, which I think is a sad way to use the camera.

The perspective of a 28mm lens cropped to the field of view of a 75mm lens is the exact same as a 75mm lens.  As long as the subject distance doesn't change, the perspective is constant.  Here is evidence:

This image was taken with a 75mm lens. The aspect ratio is changed to make a square image (which fits the subject) but is otherwise the image straight out of camera. I used a tripod.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Now, here is the same image made with a 35mm lens but cropped to have the same field of view as the 75mm. The camera was left in the same place on the tripod.  The only difference was the 35mm lens and the cropping.  Perspective (and pretty much everything else about the image) remain constant.

Now, here is an image made with the same 35mm lens, but from a much closer distance. The compression effect goes away, and the three subjects suddenly to be on dramatically different planes.  Notice that the smaller rabbit is much more obviously in the foreground--it's nose is below the feet of the second rabbit. It appears closer because, relatively speaking it IS closer. With this shot the smaller rabbit was only about 2/3 as far away as the more distant rabbit. In the first two images, the closer rabbit was at essentially the same distance as the more distant rabbit. Compression. All of this is because of the subject distance, not because of the focal length of the lens used.

So, in answer to your question, yes, a 28mm lens cropped to 75mm has the exact same perspective as a 75mm lens uncropped.  Identical. 

As to using a zoom lens to find the desired composition... There is nothing wrong with it as long as you are, in fact, using it to achieve the right composition. Many people (me included) get lazy and use it instead to simply make sure a subject fills a frame without ever determining what subject distance and perspective will provide the best picture.  Are you better off taking a 28mm image from close up?  Or taking a 75mm image from moderate distance?  Camera down low or held at eye level? Either might be better. A good photographer with a zoom lens will (as much as possible) figure out which composition is best, position themselves, zoom, and shoot.  A less diligent photographer will skip the first step, just zoom to fill the frame and shoot from wherever they happen to be standing.  Honestly, no difference between using a zoom to compose and using a digital crop to compose.  Either can be good; either can be sloppy.

Aside from differences in resolution and maybe overall image quality (cropping makes a lens work harder, but can eliminate edge aberrations so could be better or worse), zooming and cropping are otherwise identical.

As to your last comment, certainly a camera like the Q2 is at its best when you utilize the entire frame. But just because that is how it performs best doesn't mean that's the only way it performs well.  That is also true for a camera like the SL2 with the 24-90.  Frankly, the 24-90 is just a touch soft above 75mm.  Bad?  Definitely not--it's very good indeed. But is it as good as it is at 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm?  Definitely not.  Does that mean people buying the 24-90 are "falling for" Leica's scheme to get you to use other focal lengths?  Of course not. All cameras and lenses have performance envelopes where they work well, where they work OK, and where they are just not that good.  If you want to make 8x10 prints or 13x19 prints using a Q2 I'd say it is very good indeed using it at 28mm, with the 35mm crop, and with the 50mm crop.  Good enough that I would not think twice about utilizing those crops if the picture called for it. I do try to avoid the 75mm crop for anything that might be printed beyond 8x10. Is the image quality using the 50mm crop as good as using an SL2 with the 24-90? No, it's definitely not.  But the SL2 and 24-90 are relative beasts compared to the Q2. They have their place and use, but it isn't the same place and use as the Q2.

One more quick example... A picture of mine is currently on display in a gallery near me.  I'm fairly proud of it.  It was made with a Q2, and it's an 11x14 print (matted and framed to 16x22 or so). I made it a few weeks ago when I was in New York--really highlighted what the city is like during Covid.  It tells a good story and has good enough image quality that you certainly aren't distracted from the story by a loss of sharpness or noise or anything like that. At 11x14, it was printed at 300ppi which is native resolution for most high-end ink jets. It was roughly a 65mm crop (in software, not in camera) from that Q2--somewhere around 14 megapixels.  I wanted the perspective from where I was standing, but I wanted a longer lens. I didn't have a longer lens. Was the image quality satisfactory? I thought so. The gallery thought so. I don't feel like Leica "cheated" by only including a 28mm lens on the camera.  No scam. I didn't fall for anything. It's a small, travel/street/shapshot camera that is capable of excellent image quality.  The lens is good enough and the resolution high enough that it is, indeed, quite usable as a 35mm or 50mm camera even for demanding customers (depending on the specific use case, of course--wouldn't want a 36" landscape print at the 50mm focal length).

 

Edited October 11, 2020 by Jared
Typo

[nico4444]

8 hours ago, Jared said:

So, in answer to your question, yes, a 28mm lens cropped to 75mm has the exact same perspective as a 75mm lens uncropped.  Identical. 

Thank you for the explaination - I think I understand it better now, conceptually. Cropping in a shot does not change the perspective of the shot - got it.

As for the rest of your post, I still stand against your points, because as I stated twice before, I personally dislike the Q2 and modestly cropping with it for my own reasons. I can understand that having a larger MP sensor gives room to crop in case that's needed, but to suggest the use of constant cropping is what the Q2 was designed for is absolutely baffling (to me, at least). Also, again as said before, OP does not print, so it makes little sense for OP to get a high count MP sensor since the results show far better on prints than on a monitor. And, I never called it a scam, because falling for marketing BS (my opinion, stop trying to convince me otherwise) makes the purchaser accountable not the manufacturer.

May want to watch the two linked videos below without prejudice and see for yourself whether you agree with the points.

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Jared]

OK, I watched the two videos. In the first video, the two negatives raised during the unboxing were that the colors were better in the original Q vs. the Q2, and that the high ISO performance was better in the original Q. As to the first point, I certainly agree that the colors are different, but I would not have said either was better. Most people tend to prefer what they are used to when a new chip comes out. No surprise there. I would say they are different, but I can consistently get the colors I want out of either. I do profile my cameras, though.

As to the high ISO performance, I would say the Q2 is similar to the Q if you look at the same size image, but worse if you zoom in to 100%. Basically, some additional resolution but no real improvement in high ISO situations. The main points of the second video seems to be a rant against using digital crop—that it becomes a crutch for sloppy photography—and the poor price/performance ratio of the Q2. I agree that cropping/zooming can be a sign of sloppy photography, but certainly not always. As to price, I would say both are quite poor compared to other brands, and that both are quite good compared to Leica averages.

As to convincing you it’s the right camera for you... Obviously, I’m not going to. That’s fine. It’s not a match. Honestly, I’m not trying to convince you it’s good, just trying to suggest cropping is not really any different from zooming. Especially true if you are talking about someone who doesn’t print. It may not be the most elegant way to get a particular field of view, but it is still an effective way. 

I don’t think I was putting words in your mouth when I said you thought selling a camera with a digital crop as a feature is a scam, though. Paraphrase, not direct quote, certainly, but is the flavor wrong? You called it, “marketing BS” and then post a video whose title is, “Leica Q2–A Scam, That’s It”. You don’t think digital zoom is a scam? It sure seems like it.OK, I get your point that the onus is on the buyer not the manufacturer, but it seems like splitting hairs.

Thanks for taking the time to support your opinions. Too often discussions like this can fall into shouting matches without anyone offering evidence or explanations. I understand  your opinion. Sounds like we just disagree. You feel that using a crop/digital zoom is a bad habit indicative of sloppy photography. I don’t. If you are leaving yourself with enough resolution for the intended use and you aren’t cropping simply to avoid the hard work of finding the best perspective I think it’s a useful tool. No different from the typical optical zoom.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Jared
Clarity