Advice - Q2 vs SL2S

[Craig Clark]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey everyone - I currently own a Q2 and a Q2 Monochrom...I work as a safety director for a contractor in the Washington, DC area and have recently been asked if I would be willing to take photos of some of our work / craftsmanship to be printed (fairly large).  Having dug around a bit, there actually seems to be a market for construction photos - however, I have quickly realized that the Q2 isn't the camera for such photos.  The focal length is not quite wide enough for many of the interior shots that I would need to get.  I have been contemplating trading the Q2 for the SL2S combo with the 24-70 as I think it would work better.  Anyway, I was curious if the images I get from that system are going to have the magic of the Q2?  I have read tons of reviews and feel like I end up more conflicted than anything.  I used to shoot Sony before converting to Leica and what I don't want is a Sony Alpha Camera with a Sigma lens...just with Leica logos on them...

Anyone on here have experience with both cameras that could maybe give some advice?  Thanks in advance!  

I should add that since I purchased the monochrom - I have barely used my Q2...at least for personal work, 99% of what I shoot is black and white.  I would never ever ever get rid of the Q2M!

Edited July 22, 2021 by Craig Clark
addition

[Simone_DF]

The SL2 and the Q2 have the same sensor

[Advertisement]

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

[Craig Clark]

7 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

The SL2 and the Q2 have the same sensor

This is true - I was leaning more toward the SL2S though due to the fact that its said to be better in low light.  Some of the places I would likely shoot will not be well lit.  

[jefe]

Hi Craig, I bought a Q2M but had to return it after a month as the camera rendered sunbursts very poorly ....... rather than rays I got a grid-like pattern that looked like  reflection off the sensor or focusing grid. I loved the Q2M otherwise but given this significant issue I determined that the M was perhaps not ready for prime-time. So I am looking for a Q2 if you want to sell yours. Please let me know. Thanks, Jeff

[Simone_DF]

9 hours ago, Craig Clark said:

This is true - I was leaning more toward the SL2S though due to the fact that its said to be better in low light.  Some of the places I would likely shoot will not be well lit.  

Ops... I misread SL2 instead of SL2s

I like my SL2s and the images do not look at all like a Sony, which I used to have

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, jefe said:

Hi Craig, I bought a Q2M but had to return it after a month as the camera rendered sunbursts very poorly ....... rather than rays I got a grid-like pattern that looked like  reflection off the sensor or focusing grid. I loved the Q2M otherwise but given this significant issue I determined that the M was perhaps not ready for prime-time. So I am looking for a Q2 if you want to sell yours. Please let me know. Thanks, Jeff

The Q2 (color) and many other brands of current mirrorless camera have these reflections, which are reflections off the sensor and/or sensor cover glass – Fujifilm GFX + native GF lens being one. It's not just the Q2M. If you want to never see sensor reflections when shooting straight into the sun at certain angles stopped down, the only true safe bet is a DSLR.

If you love sunstars, the Sony A7 series plus Zeiss Loxia produce really nice ones.

Edited July 22, 2021 by hdmesa

[marchyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Craig Clark said:

The focal length is not quite wide enough for many of the interior shots that I would need to get.

A 24-70 lens on another camera isn't going to be that much of a difference from the Q for interior shots.    I'd think you'd want something in the 14-24 range.  Something like the Sigma 14-24 or the Leica 16-35 zoom lenses.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, jefe said:

Hi Craig, I bought a Q2M but had to return it after a month as the camera rendered sunbursts very poorly ....... rather than rays I got a grid-like pattern that looked like  reflection off the sensor or focusing grid.

That was the wrong reason to return the camera. A large number of digital cameras without an AA filter will do this, it is a reflection between the rear lens element and the sensor. On a colour camera the pattern will be red dots. If you want to mitigate the effect you will need a camera with a strong AA filter - which Leica doesn't offer.

[jefe]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

That was the wrong reason to return the camera. A large number of digital cameras without an AA filter will do this, it is a reflection between the rear lens element and the sensor. On a colour camera the pattern will be red dots. If you want to mitigate the effect you will need a camera with a strong AA filter - which Leica doesn't offer.

Thank you for this information, jaapv. I owned a Leica Q for almost 4 years and never had this issue with sunbursts. In fact, I found the Q rendering of sunbursts to be excellent with no artifacts like grid patterns or patterns of red dots of any sort. I understand the Q does not have a AA filter. The Q2M was an excellent camera and I loved it but the rendering of sunbursts was so poor that it was a deal breaker for me. I am hoping the Q2 renders sunbursts like the Q and will test it accordingly before purchase.

[jefe]

5 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The Q2 (color) and many other brands of current mirrorless camera have these reflections, which are reflections off the sensor and/or sensor cover glass – Fujifilm GFX + native GF lens being one. It's not just the Q2M. If you want to never see sensor reflections when shooting straight into the sun at certain angles stopped down, the only true safe bet is a DSLR.

If you love sunstars, the Sony A7 series plus Zeiss Loxia produce really nice ones.

Thank you, hdmesa, for your comments. I never had this issue with my Q and was therefore astonished the Q2M suffered so badly in this area. I am hoping the Q2 will be more like the Q and will render sunbursts well ....... I will test the Q2 for this before purchase.

 

 

[hdmesa]

5 minutes ago, jefe said:

Thank you, hdmesa, for your comments. I never had this issue with my Q and was therefore astonished the Q2M suffered so badly in this area. I am hoping the Q2 will be more like the Q and will render sunbursts well ....... I will test the Q2 for this before purchase.

 

 

I think the Q2M provokes the issue more since it doesn't have the Bayer color filter array. But you can make just about any mirrorless camera do this with the right lens, f-stop and sun position.

[jefe]

53 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I think the Q2M provokes the issue more since it doesn't have the Bayer color filter array. But you can make just about any mirrorless camera do this with the right lens, f-stop and sun position.

Yes, what you postulate about the Bayer array may be true. I had never encountered this issue until the Q2M, but it is certainly on my radar now.

 

[acg69]

11 hours ago, jefe said:

Hi Craig, I bought a Q2M but had to return it after a month as the camera rendered sunbursts very poorly ....... rather than rays I got a grid-like pattern that looked like  reflection off the sensor or focusing grid. I loved the Q2M otherwise but given this significant issue I determined that the M was perhaps not ready for prime-time. So I am looking for a Q2 if you want to sell yours. Please let me know. Thanks, Jeff

I sometimes get the same “grid” on the Q2. Haven’t been able to make it go away yet or isolate the cause. 

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, jefe said:

Thank you for this information, jaapv. I owned a Leica Q for almost 4 years and never had this issue with sunbursts. In fact, I found the Q rendering of sunbursts to be excellent with no artifacts like grid patterns or patterns of red dots of any sort. I understand the Q does not have a AA filter. The Q2M was an excellent camera and I loved it but the rendering of sunbursts was so poor that it was a deal breaker for me. I am hoping the Q2 renders sunbursts like the Q and will test it accordingly before purchase.

It remains a  mystery, as the lens is identical and the only difference between the sensors is the replacement of the Bayer filter by a clear one. The  real determining factor -and the reason that mirrorless cameras are prone-  is the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, which is obviously identical. 
I think that you simply stumbled on the phenomenon and that luck dictated which camera you were using. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison.

Anyway, if you go into the forums that cater to owners of Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Sony, etc mirrorless cameras you will find the same puzzled complaint over and over again.

And this forum, the thread where I found out what was happening, suspecting simple lens flare initially. It is a weird effect, to be sure.

 

[Q_lux]

For the kind of photos you want/have to take, I would opt for a system with interchangeable optics, may it be prime or zoom lenses. I always considered the Q(2) to be aimed at a spontaneous, no fuss (quick and dirty if you prefer) kind of photography where you don't want to think a lot about settings. Architecture, craftsmanship (maybe including the people doing so) ask for a range from wide or even ultra-wide angle to moderate tele (portraits). So, a SLS2 for the main work makes sense, maybe with a Q2 at hand for the magic, a Q2M at hand for more magic ...

[Craig Clark]

20 hours ago, jefe said:

Hi Craig, I bought a Q2M but had to return it after a month as the camera rendered sunbursts very poorly ....... rather than rays I got a grid-like pattern that looked like  reflection off the sensor or focusing grid. I loved the Q2M otherwise but given this significant issue I determined that the M was perhaps not ready for prime-time. So I am looking for a Q2 if you want to sell yours. Please let me know. Thanks, Jeff

I will definitely keep you posted.  Thank you!  I will likely make a decision next week.  

[Craig Clark]

17 hours ago, marchyman said:

A 24-70 lens on another camera isn't going to be that much of a difference from the Q for interior shots.    I'd think you'd want something in the 14-24 range.  Something like the Sigma 14-24 or the Leica 16-35 zoom lenses.

I agree....i kind of figured that the 24-70 would serve several purposes and having an interchangeable lens camera would allow me to add something wider to the kit later on.  They have that deal right now on the combo so I figured its a good place to start.  

[jefe]

On 7/23/2021 at 11:08 AM, Craig Clark said:

I will definitely keep you posted.  Thank you!  I will likely make a decision next week.  

Thanks, Craig. 

 

[jefe]

On 7/23/2021 at 2:17 AM, jaapv said:

It remains a  mystery, as the lens is identical and the only difference between the sensors is the replacement of the Bayer filter by a clear one. The  real determining factor -and the reason that mirrorless cameras are prone-  is the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, which is obviously identical. 
I think that you simply stumbled on the phenomenon and that luck dictated which camera you were using. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison.

Anyway, if you go into the forums that cater to owners of Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Sony, etc mirrorless cameras you will find the same puzzled complaint over and over again.

And this forum, the thread where I found out what was happening, suspecting simple lens flare initially. It is a weird effect, to be sure.

 

Thanks very much for the informative comments, jaapv. The fascinating thing is the with my old Q, I NEVER had a bad result with the sunbursts. Not even once ....... out of hundreds of images I took that contained sunbursts. With the Q2M, I had the camera only a short period of time before I returned it as unfit for the purpose. I took maybe 500 images with it ....... 40 or 50 of which included sunbursts and EVERY single sunburst image featured the grid pattern. Not even one single sunburst image was usable from the Q2M. I wonder ..... is the rear element / sensor distance in the Q2M different than that distance in the Q?? If the issue is distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, I am surprised German optical engineers at Leica have not properly addressed the issue when they are selling Q2Ms as premium products for $6,000 USD. I would think this issue will tarnish the brand where superior optics are part of the brand proposition of Leica.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Stuart Richardson]

If your photos are going to be printed rather large, the SL2 is going to be a better choice than the SL2S. For this kind of work, your best lens is going to be a tripod...architecture work is very hard to do without a stable platform to help align all the converging lines...otherwise you are going to spend ages in photoshop and lightroom correcting things, and you will wind up cropping in quite a bit. 24mp is enough to print to about 30x40 inches in good quality, but the extra megapixels in the Q2 or SL2 are really going to help you, and "better in low light" is relevant, but not really until you are in the 1000s or 10,000s of ISO, where you should not be anyway for this kind of work (the tripod, remember?). Most architecture work needs a tripod not only for the converging problem I mentioned above, but also because you often have to use small apertures to get everything in DOF, and often the best time to photograph is the early morning or early evening when you can balance the interior and exterior lighting. BTW, I know you said you did not want a Sigma look, but the 24-70mm Zoom is designed and produced by Sigma for Leica. This is not a criticism of it, but you should be aware. I would say that rather than that lens, you might consider the Sigma 24mm lens, which is extremely good and cheap. It should perform better than the zoom at a much lower price. I cannot comment on the 16-35 or Sigma zooms, but they might be more useful in this kind of work than the 24-70mm. When I do architecture work on the SL2, I have primarily used 24mm and 35mm lenses, with 50mm for detail shots. If it is at all possible to avoid, I try not to go any wider as superwides tend to have so much perspective distortion that the house seems cavernous and the interplay between objects is just thrown off because they are so distorted from how we see them in life (of course, some people love that...).