Leica Q2 Monochrom

[cboy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, hdmesa said:

 

 

 

I think it affects all mirrorless, but some sensor and lens combinations more (GFX with GF lenses). You will only see this at f/16-22 and only when shooting directly into the sun and only when focused at or near infinity. How in love are you with sunstars? I love sunstars, but I maybe shoot two a year and only one at infinity 

Everyone shooting landscape is moving to focus stacking at around f/5.6 if they need ultimate DOF anyway. And I don't think there are a lot of street shooters doing f/22 straight into the sun, either.

 

Many instances a street scene i would have high contrast light( at least here in australia), particularly in afternoon and against the sun(Think Trent Park). I also use high apertures for hyperfocal distancing so its really limiting. Sun stars are great and adds a wonderful effect, but the sensor pattern is an artificial flaw of the system.

Your right most lenses would resolve its  highest at mid apertures so landscape photographers dont need to worry. But i argue theres better cameras to do landscape with.

Edited November 12, 2020 by cboy

[T25UFO]

1 hour ago, Giguchan said:

I hope not....  but you might be right.

Maybe in short supply, but definitely available.  Mine is due to arrive in two weeks and I did not pre-order.

[Advertisement]

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

[Giguchan]

On 11/10/2020 at 11:47 AM, Leica28 said:

B&H Photo has it available for pre-order.   What a nice addition to my lovely Q2....

We think alike!

That's exactly what i said!!  Can't  wait  until i properly travel again!

[Giguchan]

13 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

Maybe in short supply, but definitely available.  Mine is due to arrive in two weeks and I did not pre-order.

Thanks for the reply..  Good luck...  I'll get mine  shortly...  can't wait. First of the year or so..Up to Boston Leica Gallery..  perhaps it wont be as bad as when the Q2  came out.

[markforce]

On 11/11/2020 at 6:27 AM, cboy said:

That nasty sensor pattern is obvious its artificial and destroys the image. From the looks of the example photos even shooting at a oblique angle away for the sun will likey may induce the effect. There are many instance where a person maybe shooting against the sun in which case theyll be forever second guessing if the effect will happen. Street photographers capturing a street afternoon scene against the light for instance. 6k for a flaw that limits photographic opportunity in many cases is not good imho. Its not flare. Its a inherent flaw.

I tend to shoot against the sun fairly frequently (I do like the effect). Previously with Ms, now with SL2. This has me thinking long and hard as to whether to drop the $$ on this one.

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!

[Peter_S]

Am 10.11.2020 um 16:02 schrieb Clicknick:

I would be interested to see Leica produce a Q2 with a "fixed" Tri-Elmar fixed lens, to give real optical zoom, not digital, which will not give the same perspectives.  28-50-75 would be fabulous.

Now you could get a used X-Vario and have MaxMax convert it to monochrom. That sure is far from the theoretical performance of a "Q-vario-mono", but likely cheaper (and realistic). Just a thought.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Peter_S

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/10/2020 at 12:04 PM, nameBrandon said:

I'm still struggling with their pricing on this. I was all in at the standard Q2 pricing. $6k is now close enough to M10M pricing that I may just forgo the Q2M entirely. 

The Q2 Mono with its built in 28 Summilux is $6000 USD; the M10 Mono with the separate  28 Summilux  is $15,590. 

If a person already has the 28 Summilux M lens, the M10 Mono may be a better choice.  If not, the Q2 Mono is the deal of the century (imho).

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Herr Barnack]

On 11/10/2020 at 10:02 AM, Clicknick said:

I would be interested to see Leica produce a Q2 with a "fixed" Tri-Elmar fixed lens, to give real optical zoom, not digital, which will not give the same perspectives.  28-50-75 would be fabulous.

There's no doubt Leica could do this - but the resulting camera would not be a Q2; it would be another product entirely. 

My guess is that the proposed camera would also exceed the size/weight of the Q2 - and the M10 with a lens mounted, for that matter.  That increased size & weight would compromise the carry it everywhere nature of the Q2 and Q2 Mono.

The S3 and SL2 are "professional cameras" in terms of lens systems, size and weight.  With its other lines of cameras, Leica seems to want to adhere to the small, light and fast ethos, which imho is a good thing.  The photographic world has enough "monster truck" cameras to choose from already.

Oh crap, I'm liking the Q2 Mono - a lot...  😳

Edited November 12, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[hdmesa]

28 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

The Q2 Mono with its built in 28 Summilux is $6000 USD; the M10 Mono with the separate  28 Summilux  is $15,590. 

If a person already has the 28 Summilux M lens, the M10 Mono may be a better choice.  If not, the Q2 Mono is the deal of the century (imho).

 

As much as I love my Q-P, there is a significant difference between the 28 "Summilux" of the Q and the 28 Summilux for M. I think the results from the Q are great, especially since I don't need ultimate corner performance – but it is not M Summilux performance out to the far corners.

Q f/1.7 Summilux software distortion correction is viewable in Capture One by unchecking "Hide Distorted Areas" and clicking the crop tool.

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!

Edited November 12, 2020 by hdmesa

[Herr Barnack]

10 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

As much as I love my Q-P, there is a significant difference between the 28 "Summilux" of the Q and the 28 Summilux for M. I think the results from the Q are great, especially since I don't need ultimate corner performance – but it is not M Summilux performance out to the far corners.

Q f/1.7 Summilux software distortion correction is viewable in Capture One by unchecking "Hide Distorted Areas" and clicking the crop tool.

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!

True.

The 28mm f/1.4 Summilux M does outperform the 28mm f/1.7 Summilux of the Q cameras. 

Perhaps Leica was aiming for perfection in the f/1.4 Summilux and affordability with 90-95% of the performance of the f/1.4 when they designed the 28mm f/1.7 for the Q cameras. 

The f/1.7 Summilux is not as close to perfection as its f/1.4 sibling, but it is still a very good lens.  I have no complaints...

[Stephen.s1]

After checking sample images from the Q-M (is that correct?) I think it would behoove Leitz to pack the most commonly used B/W filters with each camera.

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

As much as I love my Q-P, there is a significant difference between the 28 "Summilux" of the Q and the 28 Summilux for M. I think the results from the Q are great, especially since I don't need ultimate corner performance – but it is not M Summilux performance out to the far corners.

Q f/1.7 Summilux software distortion correction is viewable in Capture One by unchecking "Hide Distorted Areas" and clicking the crop tool.

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!

Is this bad?
No one has yet shown that the resulting final images are any worse.
I see it is a good use of technology to get the best final image, combined with a much smaller, auto-focus, macro-capable, leaf shutter lens/body package.
What not to like?

The alternative way to look at it is that M lenses are hamstrung by backward-compatibility with film M bodies. Cut that out and you have many more options for making better lenses - and, especially, better final images.

Edited November 12, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[hdmesa]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Is this bad?
No one has yet shown that the resulting final images are any worse.
I see it is a good use of technology to get the best final image, combined with a much smaller, auto-focus, macro-capable, leaf shutter lens/body package.
What not to like?

The alternative way to look at it is that M lenses are hamstrung by backward-compatibility with film M bodies. Cut that out and you have many more options for making better lenses - and, especially, better final images.

The Q lens does have the advantage of being designed to work in tandem with the Q's custom sensor – the M version has to work for all M cameras. This might benefit the Q lens in the center of the frame, especially since it doesn't have to open up past f/1.7. But for the corners, any time you stretch them (especially this much), you lose IQ in the form of sharpness and microcontrast.

I've been happy enough with the corner performance on my Q, but the higher-res Q2/M may suffer more in the corners compared with the Lux 28 for M if you're viewing/comparing at 1:1 magnification. But in fairness, there are not a lot of pixel-peeper corner-sharpness aficionados out there using the Q cameras.

Edited November 12, 2020 by hdmesa

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The Q lens does have the advantage of being designed to work in tandem with the Q's custom sensor – the M version has to work for all M cameras. This might benefit the Q lens in the center of the frame, especially since it doesn't have to open up past f/1.7. But for the corners, any time you stretch them (especially this much), you lose IQ in the form of sharpness and microcontrast.

I've been happy enough with the corner performance on my Q, but the higher-res Q2/M may suffer more in the corners compared with the Lux 28 for M if you're viewing/comparing at 1:1 magnification. But in fairness, there are not a lot of pixel-peeper corner-sharpness aficionados out there using the Q cameras.

Can you demonstrate that? The Q lens also does not have to be designed for minimal distortion, so can improve IQ elsewhere, leaving distortion to software.
To be clear, I am not asserting the Summilux-Q is better or worse than the Summilux-M, and I have neither. But I have not seen actual evidence that the Q is worse - in the final corrected image.

[pibitller]

8 hours ago, Peter_S said:

Now you could get a used X-Vario and have MaxMax convert it to monochrom. That sure is far from the theoretical performance of a "Q-vario-mono", but likely cheaper (and realistic). Just a thought.

they are the DNGMonochrome conversor at https://www.mymymyohmy.com/software/dngmonochrome.html

Maybe you can experiment with it.

Retrieves shadows with little noise.

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Can you demonstrate that? The Q lens also does not have to be designed for minimal distortion, so can improve IQ elsewhere, leaving distortion to software.
To be clear, I am not asserting the Summilux-Q is better or worse than the Summilux-M, and I have neither. But I have not seen actual evidence that the Q is worse - in the final corrected image.

I don't have to demonstrate physics. Stretched corners in an image negatively affect IQ. Can I tell at 24mp? Not unless I look at 1:1 and compare with a prime on another platform. But at Q2/M resolution? It will probably be more noticeable at 1:1 because 1:1 at higher resolution makes any degradation in IQ more noticeable. For that to be an issue in real life, you will need to print larger to see it. I can't comment on the Q2/M corner sharpness as I own neither. As I already said, the Q corner sharpness is "good enough" for me at 24mp, but that doesn't mean it is optimal.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

True.

The 28mm f/1.4 Summilux M does outperform the 28mm f/1.7 Summilux of the Q cameras. 

Perhaps Leica was aiming for perfection in the f/1.4 Summilux and affordability with 90-95% of the performance of the f/1.4 when they designed the 28mm f/1.7 for the Q cameras. 

The f/1.7 Summilux is not as close to perfection as its f/1.4 sibling, but it is still a very good lens.  I have no complaints...

According to Sean Reid's article, the 28mm f/1.4 Summilux M has more vignetting than 28mm f/1.7 Summilux. That difference may be not relevant or may cause more noise in the corners. 

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, hdmesa said:

I don't have to demonstrate physics. Stretched corners in an image negatively affect IQ. Can I tell at 24mp? Not unless I look at 1:1 and compare with a prime on another platform. But at Q2/M resolution? It will probably be more noticeable at 1:1 because 1:1 at higher resolution makes any degradation in IQ more noticeable. For that to be an issue in real life, you will need to print larger to see it. I can't comment on the Q2/M corner sharpness as I own neither. As I already said, the Q corner sharpness is "good enough" for me at 24mp, but that doesn't mean it is optimal.

Yes, stretching, on its own, will degrade IQ. But it depends where it is starting from. If the Summilux-Q can produce a sharper starting image than the Summilux-M by not correcting distortion optically, then it can correct the image later without necessarily making it worse than the Summilux-M.

This is all speculation - actual evidence would settle the matter. But without the Q (or the M equivalent) I have no skin in this game; I'm interested in the result because I'm interested in how Leica's lenses are evolving. The Summicron-SL lenses seem to be better than the equivalent M lenses, perhaps in part because their distortion is allowed to be corrected by software.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Is this bad?
No one has yet shown that the resulting final images are any worse.
I see it is a good use of technology to get the best final image, combined with a much smaller, auto-focus, macro-capable, leaf shutter lens/body package.
What not to like?

The alternative way to look at it is that M lenses are hamstrung by backward-compatibility with film M bodies. Cut that out and you have many more options for making better lenses - and, especially, better final images.

Sean Reid has documented the difference between M10M with Summilux 28/1.4 vs. Q2M. Everyone can decide if the difference is relevant, but there is a difference.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Jon Warwick]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The Summicron-SL lenses seem to be better than the equivalent M lenses, perhaps in part because their distortion is allowed to be corrected by software.

Maybe some syntactic ambiguity here (so possibly I’m reading the opposite of what you’ve expressed), but it was my understanding that the SL primes have very very little corrections done by software, ie, basically flawless as they are without software .....