Magic in Q images vs. Q2?

[One LCF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all

I fell in love with the images the Q produces long ago, basically when it came out. It always was on my GAS list, but other gear was higher up. I briefly had a M9 with a 35 Summilux, a Canon 5D Mk IV and a Fuji XE-3 with 23 1.4 and 35 1.4 lenses. While all have their merits the Fuji system (which I currently use) brought back magic which I last experienced with the 40mm 2.8 STM on a 5D MkI.

Fast forward some years and Leica presents the Q2. Given the specs and the success of the predecessor the Q2 should be building on that recipe.

I am contemplating acquiring a Q for the sake of having good AF with a fast full frame lens. Using the M9 was frustratingly slow, although the results (portraits) were fantastic. Landscapes came out rubbish with 35 Summilux, I guess the dynamic range of the old CCD sensor was just too restricted.

I might have a strange taste, but almost all photos shot with the Q have a certain magic in them. Most Q2 photos I see lack this magic. Am I the only one having observed this?

Nicola

[Advertisement]

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

[Le Chef]

I own neither, but when I look at images on LFI I think you can tell the difference between Q and Q2. Lots of variables - processing, skills of the users in terms of exposure and compensation. The Q has been around longer so you might consider the user base has more experience with the Q than the user base of the Q2. The only sure test would be a side by side comparison between the 2 cameras and blind/unmarked images for a third party to review to determine any differences/preferences.

[One LCF]

You are right, this is highly subjective.

I again looked at both the Q and the Q2 sample galleries at dpreview.com. They show meta data and explicitly mark non-OOC JPEGs.  What I find highly interesting is that in almost every shot (be it with the Q or with the Q2) the images were shot with negative exposure compensation (-0.3, -1.0, sometimes even higher). Do the Q and the Q2 tend to over expose? 

Also in my opinion the Q2 produces less contrasty and less vibrant colors OOC JPEGs. I prefer the increased contrast of the Q, but this is personal preference.

[marchyman]

7 hours ago, One LCF said:

Do the Q and the Q2 tend to over expose? 

I don't think so.   I just checked a catalog that had about 4,000 images shot with the Q.   558 of the images had exposure compensation applied.  About half of those were negative compensation and half were positive compensation.   It must be noted that I'll sometimes bracket shots and that the images in the catalog with compensation may not have been the best image taken of a group.  It also include images were I'd forgotten to reset the compensation to 0 after taking a shot where compensation was needed.

I switch back and forth between pattern and center weighted metering modes.

Edited March 7, 2021 by marchyman

[Craig Clark]

I have had a Q and a QP, and now have a Q2 and a Q2 monochrom.  Not getting too deep into technical speak, I think the Q2 images have just ask much appeal as the original Q if not more.  It seems to render bolder colors and just as good contrast.  The monochrom fits into a class of its own and to be honest, the more I shoot with the Q2, the more I prefer the monochrom.  The attached pic was taken with the Q2 and its a pretty good example of how amazing the color rendition is.  At least to my eye.  

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!

[Craig Clark]

I will also add that I typically under expose my images by -1ev....just a personal preference.  It goes without saying but its easier for me to recover detail from shadows than highlights when necessary...

[JJ99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Craig Clark said:

I have had a Q and a QP, and now have a Q2 and a Q2 monochrom.  Not getting too deep into technical speak, I think the Q2 images have just ask much appeal as the original Q if not more.  It seems to render bolder colors and just as good contrast.  The monochrom fits into a class of its own and to be honest, the more I shoot with the Q2, the more I prefer the monochrom.  The attached pic was taken with the Q2 and its a pretty good example of how amazing the color rendition is.  At least to my eye.  

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!

I’m new to Leica. I also have the Q2M & the Q2, the Monochrom since last November & the Q2 a couple of weeks ago. So far I agree with you, the Q2 is a nice camera, but the Q2M is really something special.

[nicci78]

Don’t worry same magic between Q and Q2. 
It’s the same lens.
But I would not upgrade from Q to Q2 though. I still think that it was non really necessary. 
But Q2 has several firmware improvements, better battery life and weather sealing. 
However 47MP is overkill. 

[intermediatic]

I moved from M9 is Canon and Fuji, like you. I bought an M240, but its largely been unused. My advice, buy a Monochrome M10 or Q2, those models are just phenomenal. You’ll sell your Fuji gear fast. Of course at that point, its time for a Q2 or an M10-R too. Leica has really pulled away from the pack during the last couple of years and is now the very best camera manufacturer out there by a long shot.

[Craig Clark]

14 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Don’t worry same magic between Q and Q2. 
It’s the same lens.
But I would not upgrade from Q to Q2 though. I still think that it was non really necessary. 
But Q2 has several firmware improvements, better battery life and weather sealing. 
However 47MP is overkill. 

Agreed - unfortunately my car was broken into in Washington DC and my QP was stolen.  I did have insurance and they paid me replacement value based on the Q2 since the Q is no longer in production.  The decision I was faced with was - do I spend 5 grand on a new camera with warranty or spend 3 grand on a 6 year old camera running the risk of defects or sensor dust...I decided to go with the Q2 and I like it very much...but to your point, there was nothing at all wrong with the original.  

[nicci78]

In that case just buy the Q2. 
Just be aware that 47MP will required 1/250th minimum for living subject. Static is ok at 1/30th with OIS set to auto. 
Avoid going beyond 6400 ISO. 
Face detect will only work within 2 meters (6 feet) Beyond it won’t recognised any face. 
 

Q2 works better with AF-C all the time for every kind of subject. 

You can use the update metadata and preview function in Lightroom to compress losslessly your DNG. Expect 85MB reduced to around 55MB.

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by nicci78

[One LCF]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb intermediatic:

I moved from M9 is Canon and Fuji, like you. I bought an M240, but its largely been unused. My advice, buy a Monochrome M10 or Q2, those models are just phenomenal. You’ll sell your Fuji gear fast. Of course at that point, its time for a Q2 or an M10-R too. Leica has really pulled away from the pack during the last couple of years and is now the very best camera manufacturer out there by a long shot.

Incidentally I just sold my Fuji X-E3 today. A camera that produces great results, but it's time to move on.

The biggest issue I have with the Q is the 28mm FOV. I am a passionate 40mm FOV shooter. Using 28mm for headshot portraits (which I do a lot) gives too much facial distortion. On the other hand 50mm is often too tight for architectural or landscape shots. So I found out that 40mm is a good focal length. 35mm works too (I did a lot of good shots with the Fuji 23mm, which has the same FOV), but it's a bit on the wide side for me.

Edited March 10, 2021 by One LCF

[hdmesa]

Biggest gotcha with both Q and Q2 are the file sizes. Since the Q/Q2 does not allow compressed DNGs like the M, the files are HUGE – Q is ~45mb and Q2 is ~80mb, which is insane. For comparison, my lossless-compressed RAWs from the GFX 50 are only 45mb.

I have the Q-P and Q2M. I'll echo what others have said about the Q2M being something special – its resolving power is about on par with the GFX 100. I thought about selling my Q-P and getting the Q2 just so I could share the same batteries with the Q2M, but I'm afraid the Q2 will underwhelm me next to the Q2M. IMO, the original Q is just brilliant and 24mp provides incredible clarity at 100% magnification.

For a while now, the quality of the images posted in the Q2 image thread has been much better, and I now see little difference between the Q and Q2. If you push your files a lot in post or need to crop, go Q2. The benefit of also having very good IQ at 35 and 50 crop cannot be underestimated.

[ianforber]

45 minutes ago, One LCF said:

Incidentally I just sold my Fuji X-E3 today. A camera that produces great results, but it's time to move on.

The biggest issue I have with the Q is the 28mm FOV. I am a passionate 40mm FOV shooter. Using 28mm for headshot portraits (which I do a lot) gives too much facial distortion. On the other hand 50mm is often too tight for architectural or landscape shots. So I found out that 40mm is a good focal length. 35mm works too (I did a lot of good shots with the Fuji 23mm, which has the same FOV), but it's a bit on the wide side for me.

I’m not too bothered about the limits of a 28mm FOV but I do on occasion try to remember to set the crop at 50mm to prompt me to stand further back from the subject and thereby minimise distortion (while deciding on the actual crop in post). Don’t always remember though, but I rarely take pictures of people so less of an issue for me.

[Stephen_C]

9 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Biggest gotcha with both Q and Q2 are the file sizes. Since the Q/Q2 does not allow compressed DNGs like the M, the files are HUGE – Q is ~45mb and Q2 is ~80mb, which is insane. For comparison, my lossless-compressed RAWs from the GFX 50 are only 45mb.

Just for information for others reading this thread I have at various times commented (including, most recently, here) that it's pretty simple to reduce the file size losslessly on import by using the Adobe DNG Converter app. Although it doesn't quite bring down Q2 files to normal Q size it's not too far off doing so.

Stephen

[brickftl]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:07 AM, nicci78 said:

Q2 works better with AF-C all the time for every kind of subject. 

 

 

I disagree. MF coupled with zoom and focus peaking with both the Q and Q2 shoot static subjects far better than AF of any stripe.

[brickftl]

On 3/5/2021 at 3:03 PM, One LCF said:

Hi all

I fell in love with the images the Q produces long ago, basically when it came out. It always was on my GAS list, but other gear was higher up. I briefly had a M9 with a 35 Summilux, a Canon 5D Mk IV and a Fuji XE-3 with 23 1.4 and 35 1.4 lenses. While all have their merits the Fuji system (which I currently use) brought back magic which I last experienced with the 40mm 2.8 STM on a 5D MkI.

Fast forward some years and Leica presents the Q2. Given the specs and the success of the predecessor the Q2 should be building on that recipe.

I am contemplating acquiring a Q for the sake of having good AF with a fast full frame lens. Using the M9 was frustratingly slow, although the results (portraits) were fantastic. Landscapes came out rubbish with 35 Summilux, I guess the dynamic range of the old CCD sensor was just too restricted.

I might have a strange taste, but almost all photos shot with the Q have a certain magic in them. Most Q2 photos I see lack this magic. Am I the only one having observed this?

Nicola

well no one can argue with what your eye sees, but for what it's worth, my eye sees no difference and instead properly shot images with both cameras are superb in my opinion. Perhaps 2 things influence what you see: first, just overall nostalgia for the original Q which was so revolutionary when released, and second, given the higher resolving power of the Q2, it's absolutely essential to ensure a high enough shutter to overcome subject or hand motion blur, no matter however so slight.

[milescrist]

Q owner for many years. shot many color photos on my Q, and black and white on Q2 and Q2 monochrom. the monochrom is incredible, but I never enjoyed shooting color on the q2. going back to q-p now and even in the raw files I believe there is something special about the original sensor's color rendering. people said similar things about the original SL, M9. etc. not liking the q3's non-flush flip screen plus the q was the lightest of all cameras. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[idusidusi]

On 3/9/2021 at 9:50 PM, nicci78 said:

Don’t worry same magic between Q and Q2. 
It’s the same lens.
But I would not upgrade from Q to Q2 though. I still think that it was non really necessary. 
But Q2 has several firmware improvements, better battery life and weather sealing. 
However 47MP is overkill. 

If 47MP is overkill what is 60MP?

 

[Dr. G]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:43 AM, One LCF said:

You are right, this is highly subjective.

I again looked at both the Q and the Q2 sample galleries at dpreview.com. They show meta data and explicitly mark non-OOC JPEGs.  What I find highly interesting is that in almost every shot (be it with the Q or with the Q2) the images were shot with negative exposure compensation (-0.3, -1.0, sometimes even higher). Do the Q and the Q2 tend to over expose? 

Also in my opinion the Q2 produces less contrasty and less vibrant colors OOC JPEGs. I prefer the increased contrast of the Q, but this is personal preference.

I usually shoot at -1.0 ev.  It’s a habit at this point but I always thought colors looked better and images had a little more contrast when shot slightly underexposed and then adjusted with my recent Leica cameras. I have no idea if this is actually the case anymore but I’m a creature of habit.