Two 20x24 prints on wall, one from Q2 other from Q2M

[Richard K]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Identically cropped and post processed.

What will you see different at normal viewing distance?

And, with your nose right into them, will there be more fine detail in the M?

Yeah I’m still thinking of complementing my Q2 with the Monoqrom. But maybe not if there’s no difference seen as above. But maybe yes for the zen of it...

[prk60091]

I do not have a Q2 or Q2M so take my remarks with a grain of salt.

I have several 36"x24" prints hanging on my walls made from my Q both in color and converted to B&W. They all look spectacular, and I think one would be hard pressed to say for certain what camera they were taken with.  

I am sure the art you make with either the Q2 or Q2M will be spectacular.

You are looking for empirical evidence for something that cannot be quantified.

I went analog for my monochrome itch.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

 

[Richard K]

Thanks for your reply, greatly appreciated. I pose that question because many photographers rave on as if it should be self evident that there would be a visible difference. I’m not convinced. I’m amenable though to getting one for, as I mentioned before, the zen of the monochrome experience. Going back...back...to my 12 year old self...

[andybarton]

I have much bigger prints than that size on my walls taken with a Nikon D700, with 12 Mp. The largest is 1500x1000mm.

No one has ever questioned the quality of the prints or even thought about the pixel count.

Enjoy your prints!

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, Richard K said:

Identically cropped and post processed.

What will you see different at normal viewing distance?

And, with your nose right into them, will there be more fine detail in the M?

Yeah I’m still thinking of complementing my Q2 with the Monoqrom. But maybe not if there’s no difference seen as above. But maybe yes for the zen of it...

The print size has nothing to do with it, but you will see a richer tonal range from the Q2M and it will look a bit more "naturally crisp" (for want of a better description) Provided you use a good printer for B&W (multiple black/grey cartridges)

[marchyman]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

Provided you use a good printer

I think this is key.  The printer may well be more important than the camera for this particular comparison.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Printers aren't plug and play, yielding universal results....user workflow, techniques, decisions and materials (e.g., inks, papers, profiles, etc) are critical. Myriad PP variables, not to mention the lighting and shooting conditions, subject matter, etc, to start.  I can get superb....or crappy...print results from my M10, M9 Monochrom or M10 Monochrom, depending mostly on me.  All of these fine cameras are fully capable machines, just like the Q series.

Jeff

[jaapv]

I was assuming a comparison between prints of equal skill, Jeff 

[Jeff S]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I was assuming a comparison between prints of equal skill, Jeff 

But two people with equally fine skills will get different results, and might reach different conclusions, from two people with equally poor skills.  Even then, someone with very, very good skills might be able to extract better results from one camera vs another, while someone with still good, but lesser, skills might not.  The Monochroms also require a somewhat different skill set (e.g., use of color filters), and some are more adept than others refining OOC contrast, etc.  Even how two prints are displayed and lighted might reveal, or not, subtle differences between prints.  There is no simple, universal answer to the OP's question, even though you are correct that the printer can matter (but not as much IMO opinion as the human printer).  I know you understand all of this, Jaap....more for others.

Jeff

[jaapv]

Same person same skill set - differentiated for Monochrom and Bayer, same printer, etc... Maybe you are right and is it too much to ask. However, basically it is possible to extract a richer tonality and crisper detail from a Monochrom file for simple hardware reasons.

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Same person same skill set - differentiated for Monochrom and Bayer, same printer, etc... Maybe you are right and is it too much to ask. However, basically it is possible to extract a richer tonality and crisper detail from a Monochrom file for simple hardware reasons.

A lot of mediocre results IMO on the M10 Monochrom picture thread compared to some of the color based M10 cameras, even from some of the same folks.  Prints would surely reveal more, but muddy is still muddy.  And poor display lighting can destroy any subtle distinctions. And so forth.

Jeff

[jaapv]

You are talking about skill sets now. I fully agree that applying standard colour processing routines to monochrome files won't cut it.

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

You are talking about skill sets now. I fully agree that applying standard colour processing routines to monochrome files won't cut it.

Indeed, and to varying degrees. The OP asked a seemingly simple question....essentially, would the two prints look alike?  And my answer is,  it depends.....to a great degree on the user (skills of the shooter, the editor, the printer and the display person).

Jeff

[jaapv]

Yes, but the original file will determine the level of print attainable. Unfortunately I have to agree that I see too many Monochrom shots that have been underprocessed resulting in flat, muddy images. Others have been run blindly through Silver Efex. A pity.

[Richard K]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

You are talking about skill sets now. I fully agree that applying standard colour processing routines to monochrome files won't cut it.

Could you expand briefly on that?

[Richard K]

OK as the OP let me try to explain a bit more of what I was getting at. I had a Q and now have a Q2. At age 73, I’ve rediscovered my love of monochrome after a few years of shooting colour. Prior to that I did large format black &white with a variety of ULF view cameras. Platinum printing etc. I started digital after a nasty heart attack 9 years ago. I now want to do black &white more or less exclusively. In communion with my 12 year old self. So, I used the Q2 as a monochrome camera and loved the results. Then the Q2 Monochrom appeared and one of the enduring claims was that it would have better resolution (I assume they meant acutance since the pixels in the CFA will demosaic and average with neighbours even if not struck with their dedicated light colour). So...I thought, neat...but is it observable or just a talking point. I looked at my raw files and compared them to downloaded Monoqrom files and didn’t really see increased acutance. So I wondered if anyone did. Or, even more importantly, was there increased detail in the print? Of course that is not what a good print is about but I was wondering if the claimed advantage is observable in the real world. If not, then why does it keep being quoted? To be honest, it might make a small difference in my buying decision but there’s advantage to the Q2 too, like tonal adjustment via colour sliders, not needing to squirm filters through the Q2 hood, etc. In the end my decision will be based on how I can best complement my desire for the monochrome experience. But yeah, I’m curious whether CFA free sensor produce images with more detail or acutance. I concede that it makes sense that there would be better high ISO performance and dynamic range. So...thanks for reading and if you have a crop of raw files from each camera that show this or have made identical prints from each, please let us know. OK, back to rummaging through what I can sell in case I decide that the *Monoqrom will enhance my life. Cheers.

*what they should have called the Q2 Monochrom 

[david strachan]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

...I see too many Monochrom shots that have been underprocessed resulting in flat, muddy images. ..

You are right Jaap.  Also blocked up over-contrasty images with no shadow detail at all...just doesn't look good or realistic.

Look for true whites and also true blacks, and adjust the print/screen to reflect this is a good start for monochrome.

...

[Herr Barnack]

23 hours ago, Richard K said:

Thanks for your reply, greatly appreciated. I pose that question because many photographers rave on as if it should be self evident that there would be a visible difference. I’m not convinced. I’m amenable though to getting one for, as I mentioned before, the zen of the monochrome experience. Going back...back...to my 12 year old self...

@Richard K   Based on the video reviews and other information I have seen, the Q2 Mono does offer a higher level of printed image quality compared to B&W conversions from the color files made by the Q2.  Incrementally higher but not higher by leaps and bounds.

The Q2M can produces a more refined print, if the person doing the printing is up to the job of creating fine prints.  Many photographers have a critical eye and will be able to see and appreciate the Q2M's higher printed image quality. 

As for the general public?  Such refinements would be lost on them.  They look but they do not see.  This assessment is not intended as some sort of condescending elitism; I have come to that conclusion based on my own personal experience of exhibiting prints in multiple gallery shows over the decades.

These two videos may help to address your questions in more depth:  https://yt.d0.cx/watch.php?v=FVWKacOLZy8

and -  https://yt.d0.cx/watch.php?v=ggY7vB07lO8

My outlook on the Q2 Monochrom is simple - if it is within your means, I say get yourself a Q2 Mono.  Based on my experience with the Q2 and M10Mono, I can't see any possible way you would regret doing so.  Making images with a dedicated black and white sensor that was designed from scratch to make only B&W images is a game changer.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Richard K]

Thank you Herr Barnack. I look forward to watching these.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jankap]

20 hours ago, jaapv said:

The print size has nothing to do with it, but you will see a richer tonal range from the Q2M and it will look a bit more "naturally crisp" (for want of a better description) Provided you use a good printer for B&W (multiple black/grey cartridges)

Isn´t is possible to show two pictures in the forum? Of course cropped, to show the difference, the crispness. This forum file would be the startpoint for a print on paper. With a not so good printer one would destroy the crispness again. Then there is the distance to view at a print. I think, one holds an A3 print in the hand (reading distance), so that is a critical format.

Still without using (TOPAZ or other) software. Also taking in account the state of the art of the Q2 and the Q2M.