Magic in Q images vs. Q2?

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, idusidusi said:

If 47MP is overkill what is 60MP?

 

After 4 years of Q2. 47MP is still overkill. 
I only upgrade to Q2 for its IP52 weather protection. Otherwise original Q is fine and still has the best ergonomics among the Q series : dedicated movie button, better thumb wheel placement (it is too far away on Q2 and Q3) 

 

[One LCF]

Almost 3 years later, the time was ripe. 😁 There is this wallpaper I could not let go of; a view of the Canal Grande in Venice, with the crazy Q-colors, so the virus never really left me...

So some weeks ago I started to seriously look for a used Q in good condition. Here in Switzerland there's a pretty wide choice of used Qs for sale, with asking prices around $2000-$2500 currently. As always condition and completeness (original box & accessories) vary wildly; quite independently of the asking price by the way. I had the opportunity to purchase a complete set for $1725. 🥳

Now as I was in quest of the magic colors of the Q, I took the Q with me on a Christmas party yesterday. Reviewing the photos today I must say the magic colors and rendition are actually there (and not a consequence of heavy editing). Below a photo from yesterday.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[bobtodrick]

4 hours ago, One LCF said:

Almost 3 years later, the time was ripe. 😁 There is this wallpaper I could not let go of; a view of the Canal Grande in Venice, with the crazy Q-colors, so the virus never really left me...

So some weeks ago I started to seriously look for a used Q in good condition. Here in Switzerland there's a pretty wide choice of used Qs for sale, with asking prices around $2000-$2500 currently. As always condition and completeness (original box & accessories) vary wildly; quite independently of the asking price by the way. I had the opportunity to purchase a complete set for $1725. 🥳

Now as I was in quest of the magic colors of the Q, I took the Q with me on a Christmas party yesterday. Reviewing the photos today I must say the magic colors and rendition are actually there (and not a consequence of heavy editing). Below a photo from yesterday.

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 know many value resolution and ‘features’ over everything, but this is the reason I haven’t upgraded my Q.  It’s colour palette is the best of any of the digital cameras I’ve owned (more than a few).

I’m not willing to chance giving that up for 40+ mp  resolution…which I don’t need…or umpteen special functions, most of which I don’t need or can do manually by using the skills I’ve learned in 45 years of image making.

Edited December 16, 2023 by bobtodrick

[One LCF]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

I know many value resolution and ‘features’ over everything, but this is the reason I haven’t upgraded my Q.  It’s colour palette is the best of any of the digital cameras I’ve owned (more than a few).

Between my first post in this thread and now I had a Mamiya 7, a Fuji GA645 and a Fuji GFX 50R. I sold all of them, the 50R I used the most - I really liked the resolution (sensor and Fuji GF lenses) and aspect ratio (4:3), but the colors just didn’t do it for me. In 2022 I switched back to the rather old Fuji X-T2 with the classic Fuji X primes - 16mm, 23mm and 35mm, all 1.4 aperture. It’s also a great little system, their 24 MP APS-C sensors are very special (no AA filter, low noise, great color results in combination with their film simulations). I used it extensively on our family trips around Europe with great success.

[David Wien]

Is it possible to post examples of Q, Q2, Q3 photos that show this difference clearly? Or links to examples. Thanks!

David

[bobtodrick]

3 hours ago, David Wien said:

Is it possible to post examples of Q, Q2, Q3 photos that show this difference clearly? Or links to examples. Thanks!

David

Not really possible.  It is one thing to concretely say one lens distinguishes more lines per mm than another, but ‘look and feel’ are entirely subjective.

It would be like ordering two different top rated meals at a 5 star restaurant…no one is going to be able to decisively say one is better than the other.

They just know what they like.

I find the Q images to have a bit more warmth and glow than, say Sony…but there are legions of Sony shooters who say they like the fact they don’t have those qualities.

Ya just gotta try them 😀

Edited December 16, 2023 by bobtodrick

[One LCF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here‘s what I got from dpreview and what I personally think are relative good example photos (straight out of camera JPEG, which is a bit meh with the first Q) by each of the Qs:

Leica Q3 sample: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9356330178/leica-q3-sample-gallery/3635322490

Leica Q2 sample: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3995099754/leica-q2-sample-gallery/7480741266

Leica Q sample: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7582132667/leica-q-real-world-sample-gallery/6596084798 

[AussieQ]

On 3/6/2021 at 7:03 AM, 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

I agree 100%. I use Canon, Sony and Fuji gear for work and the Q3 images stand out beyond the others. My only theory is that the physical/optical characteristics of the lens are at play here as even processed photos look different than my other brand cameras.

[One LCF]

Also this moody landscape made with the Q: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7582132667/leica-q-real-world-sample-gallery/7208676803

[David Wien]

9 hours ago, One LCF said:

Here‘s what I got from dpreview and what I personally think are relative good example photos (straight out of camera JPEG, which is a bit meh with the first Q) by each of the Qs:

Leica Q3 sample: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9356330178/leica-q3-sample-gallery/3635322490

Leica Q2 sample: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3995099754/leica-q2-sample-gallery/7480741266

Leica Q sample: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7582132667/leica-q-real-world-sample-gallery/6596084798 

Thanks for finding these.

I find it interesting that all these photos were taken when the sun was low in the sky. I could accept any of them and personally find it hard to say that Q > Q2 > Q3, or put them in any order.

Curiously, I actually prefer the processed version of the Q2 link. Mostly the colours are better (red, not orange, stop lights) and the details emerge with more clarity. But then, I always shoot raw.

David