Firmware 3.1 Q2 now available

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, gteague said:

sorry, i missed that you were using the /m/. and yes, i think i saw that v1.1 is right for it. and so far the convention is that the number is in the file name and you said you had a file with 2.1 in it.

i just downloaded it and the filename is q2m__11__.ifu. what version does your /info/ screen show you have?

/guy

Same! Funny thing is when I logged in the Leica website said there were no updates available for my camera 🙄

[Advertisement]

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

[acg69]

23 minutes ago, jaapv said:

In YOUR opinion. I don''t have a Q, but if I had I would prefer the frameline option. After all, the  digtal zoom of the camera is nothing more than a crop preview. It will still be recording the full data. Others copying? Why should they?. They don't have a product stable that includes the fabulous M viewfinder. 

Hahah, OK, touché! In my opinion. However, there are other rangefinder camera makers (Fujifilm springs to mind) who implemented the digital zoom in a way that facilitates composition. And this has nothing to do with the viewfinder being fabulous or not; it is a matter of size: 75 mm is way too small to do ay meaningful composition. So let's start with facts instead of my opinion or your opinion: do we agree that having a larger image helps you compose more easily? I think we all agree to that. If not, maybe on my planet things work differently than on yours. The funny thing is that the software is there. When you shoot a DNG+JPG with the digital zoom enabled, the preview is in the full screen, but the composition is done through the peep hole. So, it's good ex post but bad ex ante? Don't follow the logic here. Also, I am assuming that, even though you don't have a Q, you have actually tried composing with the digital zoom at 75, right? If not, again, no point arguing over this any more:) If so, please tell me if you found it easy to compose and if it would be easier if the implementation was, not according to my opinion, but to the industry standard. Finally, the digital zoom is a function of the camera that is very useful for some people, even if it is to check how composition will look (at post) at 35, 50 or 75. It is also useful in its own right as some people will argue that an f/2 35 mm at ~30 Mp is pretty good for their needs. All I am saying here, and frankly I don't see you coming out to refute it is that if we were given the OPTION to use either way, that would be a good thing for us and guess what, for Leica too for obvious reasons that I will not go into here - long enough as it is!

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, acg69 said:

Well, it is a bad choice. If it were a good choice, others would copy it as best practice. They don't. Why? Because it is a bad choice. This is so because @ 75 mm, one has to guess what the composition will be because of the extremely small size. What I suggest is that Leica gives us the OPTION to use either way, i.e. the heritage-first / functionality-second option of the frame lines or the industry-standard best practice option of zooming in. Given this OPTION, why would anyone be pissed off? If someone is pissed off, well, so be it; can't please everyone. Also, do we know the percentage of Q2 owners that are coming from the M or other rangefinders? Presumably, this would be the only group that cares for that sort of heritage (and if they care that much, they can obviously buy a rangefinder), because the rest of the users (like me - first time buyer) care for functionality. Again, what I am asking for it an OPTION and last time I checked, options were a good thing, right?

Thanks!

I think that most Q owners, including me, like the current implementation. It has been there since the first Q was launched and there were very few complaints about it. The most that was requested in that context is to add an option. Luckily, Leica is very conservative when adding options.

Edited April 28, 2021 by SrMi

[acg69]

4 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I think that most Q owners, including me, like the current implementation.

Funny you should say that:) I think that most Q2 owners, including me, like the other implementation. No way to find out conclusively. Hence, my suggestion that it is offered as an OPTION. You cannot seriously argue that having an option is a bad thing, especially one that improves usability and functionality and makes the camera easier to use and thus appealing to a larger audience, right?

Furthermore, if you are a Q user, it is a bit different, since, if I am not mistaken, the digital zoom goes only to 50. The problem, as I have stated above, is mainly at 75 mm, where the area is a small fraction of the full screen and thus very hard to use for any meaningful composition.

Edited April 28, 2021 by acg69

[SrMi]

Just now, acg69 said:

Funny you should say that:) I think that most Q2 owners, including me, like the other implementation. No way to find out conclusively. Hence, my suggestion that it is offered as an OPTION. You cannot seriously argue that having an option is a bad thing, especially one that improves usability and functionality and makes the camera easier to use and thus appealing to a larger audience, right?

I have expanded my previous post with the following:
"It has been there since Launched the first Q, and there were very few complaints about it. The most that was requested in that context is to add an option. Luckily, Leica is very conservative when adding options."

I think that adding tons of options is a bad thing (see Sony et al.). The question is: is the zoom option essential? It is up to Leica to decide. I rather have Leica restrain from adding options even though I am bitterly missing decoupling of AF from the shutter :).

[jaapv]

12 minutes ago, acg69 said:

you have actually tried composing with the digital zoom at 75,

No - but I found 135 mm on the M unproblematic and 90 child's play. 75 was a bit more complicated, as those are very close to the 50 mm lines. It appears to me to be a complete non-issue. But then again, I almost never compose in the viewfinder - I compose when viewing the scene and only use the viewfinder to aim.

[gteague]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

notes: none of my raw editors will show the crops.

i think leitz only added the 75mm frame when the 47mp q2 came along and cropping to 75mm yielded about as much resolution as the 50mm crop did on the q. i suspect it was one of those things they didn't think much beyond there's enough 'spare' resolution to support that crop.

this crop stuff (which imo panasonic more accurately refers to as a tele-converter mode, calling it zoom is truly ridiculous!) is a real  asset to my photography as i walk around in a semi-rural area and constantly need more 'reach' considering paranoid landowners and dogs. on my s1 i have a button on the front of the camera and i use it dozens of times per outing. so i was delighted when leica added this first to my cl and now to the q2.

i see merits in both methods--framelines and magnification--and i also see merit in keeping the menus simple. 

/guy

[acg69]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

I have expanded my previous post with the following:
"It has been there since Launched the first Q, and there were very few complaints about it. The most that was requested in that context is to add an option. Luckily, Leica is very conservative when adding options."

I think that adding tons of options is a bad thing (see Sony et al.). The question is: is the zoom option essential? It is up to Leica to decide. I rather have Leica restrain from adding options even though I am bitterly missing decoupling of AF from the shutter :).

I moved from Sony, so I am with you on that. I am very fond of the simplicity of the UX with the Q2. However, this particular thing would make the digital zoom feature (which has been regularly bad-mouthed as a gimmick) more usable in real world situations. Again as an option only.

[acg69]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No - but I found 135 mm on the M unproblematic and 90 child's play. 75 was a bit more complicated, as those are very close to the 50 mm lines. It appears to me to be a complete non-issue. But then again, I almost never compose in the viewfinder - I compose when viewing the scene and only use the viewfinder to aim.

Well, you are a better photographer than I am or at least an easier going person:) I compose largely in the same way, but minute details of what is in or out become harder with this implementation. Obviously, one can fix it in post, if they are so inclined. Anyway, I guess everyone has their own idiosyncrasies, you got yours and I certainly have mine:) Still enjoying shooting with the Q2 immensely, but this would make it a complete home run for me - oh well, better be happy with what you got;)

[sfphoto]

On 4/27/2021 at 3:00 PM, acg69 said:

OK, pixel mapping is nice to have, the “nose” was indeed an issue for me, being a left-eye shooter, so I am semi-happy! My main gripe with the Q2 has not been addressed and that is the BAD implementation of the digital zoom, as it pertains to the “frame-lines” instead of zooming in to fill the frame (like virtually every other camera maker does...). Come on, it can’t be THAT hard and I am not saying that the “heritage” argument should go away; just give us the choice to use whatever we like. As it is, it’s OK at 35, not really good at 50 and virtually unusable at 75. Can we have a poll or something, to bring this to the attention of Leica in a meaningful way, instead of just sending in solitary requests?

Just to quickly chime in and express my support for acg69's suggestion. Glad to finally have the left-eyed nose problem fixed and the pixel mapping is nice to have. But I have to agree that I was also hoping for an (optional) digital zoom in the viewfinder. It would make so much sense. I would actually vote for having an optional zoom to 35mm when using the 50mm frame lines and a zoom to 50mm when using the 75mm frame lines. You still retain the heritage rangefinder feel, but you make the longer focal lengths more usable.

Oh, and the new perspective control function from the M10P would be nice to have as well...

[acg69]

2 hours ago, sfphoto said:

Just to quickly chime in and express my support for acg69's suggestion. Glad to finally have the left-eyed nose problem fixed and the pixel mapping is nice to have. But I have to agree that I was also hoping for an (optional) digital zoom in the viewfinder. It would make so much sense. I would actually vote for having an optional zoom to 35mm when using the 50mm frame lines and a zoom to 50mm when using the 75mm frame lines. You still retain the heritage rangefinder feel, but you make the longer focal lengths more usable.

Oh, and the new perspective control function from the M10P would be nice to have as well...

I completely forgot about the perspective control! I would also like to have that on camera as well. Very useful, especially for those who do not do post processing.

On the frame lines vs. zoom, I am not sure what you mean by “having an optional zoom to 35mm when using the 50mm frame lines and a zoom to 50mm when using the 75mm frame lines”. Could you please explain? TIA!

[sfphoto]

8 hours ago, acg69 said:

I completely forgot about the perspective control! I would also like to have that on camera as well. Very useful, especially for those who do not do post processing.

On the frame lines vs. zoom, I am not sure what you mean by “having an optional zoom to 35mm when using the 50mm frame lines and a zoom to 50mm when using the 75mm frame lines”. Could you please explain? TIA!

Instead of zooming all the way to the chosen focal length equivalent, one could implement a zoom that still retains a slightly wider field of view with frame lines for the chosen focal length (like a rangefinder). This way the 50mm and especially the 75mm frames are not so small and you still see a bit of what is happening outside of your frame.

28mm (no zoom)
35mm (no zoom, 35mm frame lines)
50mm (zoom to 35mm and frame lines at 50mm)
75mm (zoom to 50mm and frame lines at 75mm)

[piblondin]

On 4/28/2021 at 8:05 AM, acg69 said:

Hahah, OK, touché! In my opinion. However, there are other rangefinder camera makers (Fujifilm springs to mind) who implemented the digital zoom in a way that facilitates composition. And this has nothing to do with the viewfinder being fabulous or not; it is a matter of size: 75 mm is way too small to do ay meaningful composition. So let's start with facts instead of my opinion or your opinion: do we agree that having a larger image helps you compose more easily? I think we all agree to that. If not, maybe on my planet things work differently than on yours. The funny thing is that the software is there. When you shoot a DNG+JPG with the digital zoom enabled, the preview is in the full screen, but the composition is done through the peep hole. So, it's good ex post but bad ex ante? Don't follow the logic here. Also, I am assuming that, even though you don't have a Q, you have actually tried composing with the digital zoom at 75, right? If not, again, no point arguing over this any more:) If so, please tell me if you found it easy to compose and if it would be easier if the implementation was, not according to my opinion, but to the industry standard. Finally, the digital zoom is a function of the camera that is very useful for some people, even if it is to check how composition will look (at post) at 35, 50 or 75. It is also useful in its own right as some people will argue that an f/2 35 mm at ~30 Mp is pretty good for their needs. All I am saying here, and frankly I don't see you coming out to refute it is that if we were given the OPTION to use either way, that would be a good thing for us and guess what, for Leica too for obvious reasons that I will not go into here - long enough as it is!

Fuji also offers an optical viewfinder that allows the photographer to see outside the frame. To me, this is one of the main advantages of shooting with a rangefinder and one of the reasons I chose the Q2 with its implementation of digital zoom / crop mode. Coming from an M, it's very familiar. 

FWIW, the feature I'd like to see in a future firmware update is a way to disable all the back buttons on the camera, so I don't accidentally press them. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by piblondin

[Aram Langhans]

On 4/28/2021 at 8:09 AM, acg69 said:

Funny you should say that:) I think that most Q2 owners, including me, like the other implementation. No way to find out conclusively. Hence, my suggestion that it is offered as an OPTION. You cannot seriously argue that having an option is a bad thing, especially one that improves usability and functionality and makes the camera easier to use and thus appealing to a larger audience, right?

Furthermore, if you are a Q user, it is a bit different, since, if I am not mistaken, the digital zoom goes only to 50. The problem, as I have stated above, is mainly at 75 mm, where the area is a small fraction of the full screen and thus very hard to use for any meaningful composition.

Funny everyone is saying something at all.  I never have used the framing choices and always shoot at 28mm and RAW.  If I want 31mm or 65mm I just crop to what I want in LR.  I want to be in full control.  I have no problem with composition since I always capture way more than I need.  It is irrelevant.  All the frame size is doing is cropping anyway, so as long as you have included what you want somewhere in the frame you can crop to any "focal length" you like, vertical, horizontal, square, diagonal ...

  

 

[sfphoto]

2 minutes ago, Aram Langhans said:

All the frame size is doing is cropping anyway, so as long as you have included what you want somewhere in the frame you can crop to any "focal length" you like, vertical, horizontal, square, diagonal ...

Sure. We are talking about an optional feature that some people might enjoy using, not necessarily everyone. BTW, not only does everything need to be in the frame, your subject also needs to be in focus. So if you are aiming for your 65 mm crop, a zoom feature might help you get the focus places more accurately.

[Mr.Q]

On 4/29/2021 at 12:09 AM, acg69 said:

Funny you should say that:) I think that most Q2 owners, including me, like the other implementation. No way to find out conclusively. Hence, my suggestion that it is offered as an OPTION. You cannot seriously argue that having an option is a bad thing, especially one that improves usability and functionality and makes the camera easier to use and thus appealing to a larger audience, right?

Furthermore, if you are a Q user, it is a bit different, since, if I am not mistaken, the digital zoom goes only to 50. The problem, as I have stated above, is mainly at 75 mm, where the area is a small fraction of the full screen and thus very hard to use for any meaningful composition.

Make a poll.  I'm sure most users prefer the framelines.  I think it's the best implementation of digital zoom to date.

[gteague]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Make a poll.  I'm sure most users prefer the framelines.  I think it's the best implementation of digital zoom to date.

i'm ok either way and if they could make an option that doesn't clutter up the menus that would be fine too. so, if you do a poll, put in a 'whatever' option.

what i'd really really like for them to do now they've made the camera 99.9% perfect for me is to take a search and delete run through the manual and delete every reference to the word 'zoom' which belongs nowhere in any documentation about the q2.  (  but not really )

/guy

[acg69]

12 hours ago, piblondin said:

Fuji also offers an optical viewfinder that allows the photographer to see outside the frame. To me, this is one of the main advantages of shooting with a rangefinder and one of the reasons I chose the Q2 with its implementation of digital zoom / crop mode. Coming from an M, it's very familiar. 

FWIW, the feature I'd like to see in a future firmware update is a way to disable all the back buttons on the camera, so I don't accidentally press them. 

I had the X100F and I hardly ever used the OVF. I found the EVF to offer a lot more in terms of facilitation of the whole process, including the zooming in option of the digital zoom. I see why those coming from the M or other r/f find this familiar, but (a) i am not so sure that there are a lot of Q/Q2 owners coming from the M - it's probably vice versa as the Q/Q2 is considered an entry point to the mark and (b) if it is offered as an option, it makes the camera appealing to a larger audience and in conjunction with the entry-point argument, it also makes financial sense for them.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[acg69]

11 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

Funny everyone is saying something at all.  I never have used the framing choices and always shoot at 28mm and RAW.  If I want 31mm or 65mm I just crop to what I want in LR.  I want to be in full control.  I have no problem with composition since I always capture way more than I need.  It is irrelevant.  All the frame size is doing is cropping anyway, so as long as you have included what you want somewhere in the frame you can crop to any "focal length" you like, vertical, horizontal, square, diagonal ...

  

 

I guess we are all different. For me, composition is in the center of photography. Just because I have the tech to not get it right on camera, it doesn't mean that I will slack off and not try it:) Back in the day of analog (when I started shooting back in 1980) you absolutely had to compose right, otherwise the image was trash. Of course, if you are only using the Q2 at 28, this whole discussion is irrelevant to you:) Personally, I prefer the 35 mm FoV, so I would very much like to use it without the frame lines. I shoot with my left eye, while my right one stays open, so I know what is in, out or at the border of the frame. I would just like to have the luxury of my composition filling the EVF frame so I can see it better. If I was more inclined to shoot at 75 (luckily I am not), this would not be a luxury , but rather a necessity.

[acg69]

7 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Make a poll.  I'm sure most users prefer the framelines.  I think it's the best implementation of digital zoom to date.

A poll would be a great idea. How do we go about it - not sure. I would be willing to write the arguments for the proposed implementation and someone would have to do the same for the existing implementation. 

I am not so sure that most users prefer the frame lines and I don't know how you infer this. If anything, most users could/should prefer to have the option (because options are nice, right?) or even have the other implementation only, as it makes the feature usable at 50 and definitely at 75 mm. But we are only guessing here... Those coming from the M (how many are they, since the Q is further down the ladder than the M) are probably more familiar with this implementation. Those not coming from the M (coming from any other camera to the Q literally) are more familiar with the proposed implementation. Both sides would be satisfied, if given the option.

And regarding options... One menu item saying frame lines or zooming in, will not clutter the UX, come on... (someone mentioned that I think)