Leica Q2/Sl2 Colors vs other Leicas

[Bibowj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all- 

  I started my digital Leica journey with the Q in 2015 and LOVED it. It’s been by far my favorite camera of all time when it comes to color. It’s been one of the few cameras in my life that I’ve truly loved. In the end through, I couldn’t live with just a 28mm so Ive moved on (though I’ve re owned it a few times). When the Q2 came out Imediatly bought it, but never could find the same organic, rich coloring that the original had so Ive sold it. I’ve rented it several times since out of curiosity but even today look at those images (in raw), I just think they look …well…incredibly digital (and kinda like a higher res version of an iPhone if Im being honest). 

   Ive had similar reactions to the SL2 but I find the SL2S to be pretty great. I currently own the M10R and the colors are good…not as good as the Q, but not bad.  Ive rented  the first M10, as well as the M240 and in the end only the Q2 (Sl2) Ive struggled getting colors that look great out of.

   Had anyone else had similar issues? Ive tried C1, LR and lots of other profiles but nothing has worked. However, I do see folks online with great work with this sensor (deep organic colors, less digital looking etc) but its few and far between.  Id like to get something small with AF too offset my M10R/M and Im half tempted to just go get another Q but Id really prefer to figure out how to make the Q2 sing.

  Any advice?

[jaapv]

In my experience whenever I get a new camera it takes me weeks to tweak my postprocessing to get the colour I like. The camera is virtually never to blame, the secret is in the postprocessing. 

[ravinj]

11 hours ago, Bibowj said:

Hello all- 

  I started my digital Leica journey with the Q in 2015 and LOVED it. It’s been by far my favorite camera of all time when it comes to color. It’s been one of the few cameras in my life that I’ve truly loved. In the end through, I couldn’t live with just a 28mm so Ive moved on (though I’ve re owned it a few times). When the Q2 came out Imediatly bought it, but never could find the same organic, rich coloring that the original had so Ive sold it. I’ve rented it several times since out of curiosity but even today look at those images (in raw), I just think they look …well…incredibly digital (and kinda like a higher res version of an iPhone if Im being honest). 

   Ive had similar reactions to the SL2 but I find the SL2S to be pretty great. I currently own the M10R and the colors are good…not as good as the Q, but not bad.  Ive rented  the first M10, as well as the M240 and in the end only the Q2 (Sl2) Ive struggled getting colors that look great out of.

   Had anyone else had similar issues? Ive tried C1, LR and lots of other profiles but nothing has worked. However, I do see folks online with great work with this sensor (deep organic colors, less digital looking etc) but its few and far between.  Id like to get something small with AF too offset my M10R/M and Im half tempted to just go get another Q but Id really prefer to figure out how to make the Q2 sing.

  Any advice?

I have the Q2, M10-R, SL2-S, Hasselblad X1D and have also used the SL2 and Q earlier. 

To my eyes (everyone else's mileage will vary):

• M10R with the right lenses can produce stunning results, easily keeping up in colors, tone and sharpness with my favorite of all - Hasselblad X1D. Surpasses the Q and perhaps the Q2 as well (but at the least matches the Q2 at same FL). Yes, it can take a bit more post-processing compared to the Q/Q2 to get the best out of M10-R

• Q2 - IMHO, what you see as "digital" look is increased resolution. Having used the Q2, I would not go back to the Q. I don't think you need to do any special processing. I am hard pressed to say anything "bad" about the Q2

• SL2 - Same observation as above. I made the mistake of selling my SL2, replacing with SL2-S. Big mistake. So far as FF is concerned, SL2 with SL APO primes is unbeatable for my use cases which involve base ISO to ISO 1600. In my view it should be a crime to even think about using those lenses on any other camera.

Perhaps post a link to DNGs and your version of corresponding processed jpgs from M10-R and Q2 so other folks here can see what is missing. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by ravinj

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, ravinj said:

• Q2 - IMHO, what you see as "digital" look is increased resolution. Having used the Q2, I would not go back to the Q. I don't think you need to do any special processing. I am hard pressed to say anything "bad" about the Q2

•  

I think you are right about the quality of the Q2 files - but the processing is a different matter. As I see colour as a part of the creative process, anything the direct raw conversion produces will be processed further. I need to get the camera output from the raw converter as best matched to my other cameras as possible to avoid having a different workflow for each  camera. 

[ravinj]

Fair point about processing esp for getting consistency across cameras. I should have added that minimal processing for Q2 was in context of (little) effort needed to get the dng to a state where it is acceptably good. But then "good" for one person may just be a starting point for another.

[Bibowj]

I agree with what everyone is saying but Is till struggle. Maybe its just pure resolution…… but the color palette seems different and no matter how much WB adjustment I do, nor what profile is added will make the colors seems pleasing to MY eye. Q1 to Q2 are significantly different to me (even when you normalize for resolution) and maybe with a lot of PP work I can make them match, but Ive never had much luck.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Did you use a Gretagmacbeth colour chart? That should give you a completely neutral profile. As I said above, synchronizing the output of your cameras during raw conversion by applying dedicated camera profiles saves a lot of postprocessing time and effort.

[jaapv]

17 hours ago, ravinj said:

• Q2 - IMHO, what you see as "digital" look is increased resolution. Having used the Q2, I would not go back to the Q. I don't think you need to do any special processing. I am hard pressed to say anything "bad" about the Q2

•  

A bit of grain added in postprocessing might well solve this issue.

 

[ravinj]

Possibly. Kind of like even order harmonic distortion making the sound "sweeter" vs "cold sounding" clean digital high res audio.

[Craig Clark]

On 10/25/2021 at 10:23 PM, ravinj said:

I have the Q2, M10-R, SL2-S, Hasselblad X1D and have also used the SL2 and Q earlier. 

To my eyes (everyone else's mileage will vary):

• M10R with the right lenses can produce stunning results, easily keeping up in colors, tone and sharpness with my favorite of all - Hasselblad X1D. Surpasses the Q and perhaps the Q2 as well (but at the least matches the Q2 at same FL). Yes, it can take a bit more post-processing compared to the Q/Q2 to get the best out of M10-R

• Q2 - IMHO, what you see as "digital" look is increased resolution. Having used the Q2, I would not go back to the Q. I don't think you need to do any special processing. I am hard pressed to say anything "bad" about the Q2

• SL2 - Same observation as above. I made the mistake of selling my SL2, replacing with SL2-S. Big mistake. So far as FF is concerned, SL2 with SL APO primes is unbeatable for my use cases which involve base ISO to ISO 1600. In my view it should be a crime to even think about using those lenses on any other camera.

Perhaps post a link to DNGs and your version of corresponding processed jpgs from M10-R and Q2 so other folks here can see what is missing. 

I am curious - why do you say it was a big mistake to swap the SL2 for the SL2s?  I traded my Q2 for an SL2s (I still have a Q2M) and I have been really happy with it...although admittedly I havent spent a ton of time shooting with it.  

Just curious as to why the SL2 is better.  I wasnt sure which one to get but I typically shoot in lower light situations so I went with the S.  

[ravinj]

2 hours ago, Craig Clark said:

I am curious - why do you say it was a big mistake to swap the SL2 for the SL2s?  I traded my Q2 for an SL2s (I still have a Q2M) and I have been really happy with it...although admittedly I havent spent a ton of time shooting with it.  

Just curious as to why the SL2 is better.  I wasnt sure which one to get but I typically shoot in lower light situations so I went with the S.  

To be clear, SL2 may not be "better" for everyone, hence I prefaced my points with "To my eyes...".

I will always take higher resolution for my use cases within the ISO range I use. In that ISO range and for my use cases (landscapes and architecture) SL2 is superior without giving up anything.

I also crop a lot as I prefer to travel with a couple of SL APOs and don't use long zooms. There is something to be said for image integrity being preserved when using extreme cropping. This is also why I love the Q2 - the crops are very very good.

Edited October 28, 2021 by ravinj