Q2 In 2022 - Input Please

[pixeljohn22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm interested in the Q2 as an everyday carry and travel camera. Would like to hear from Q2 owners as to how they are still getting along with this camera. I watched a youtube interview with a Leica exec and he said that there will be a Q3 but not this year. So one question that I have is how is the low light performance of the Q2? I realize that viewing low light photos is very subjective but I would love to hear your experiences or see some examples. I intend to do some night street photography too.

Thanks in advance!!

[acg69]

Q2 is alive and well in 2022! Great for everyday carry and certainly better than Leica’s low light monster, the SL2-s, in that respect. It is always going to be a compromise as you know. If you don’t mind the weight, the Sl2-s is better for night photography. If you only do B&W, the Q2M is better for night photography. If you want an all rounder, the Q2 is OK for night as well. You can see pictures that I have posted here for some idea; if it works for you, get it. Don’t wait for the Q3, especially since it may be a 60Mp thing, which, (correct me if I am wrong here guys) will not do wonders for the night stuff.

[LocalHero1953]

I have recently got the Q2, as a simplified replacement for the CL. I also have the SL2-S, and I have had the M240 and M9. I have not really given it a full run, but last night I used it in drama rehearsals in tandem with the SL2-S, in a poorly lit hall.

I agree the SL2-S is better in low light than the Q2. I can trust the SL2-S to produce usable pictures up to ISO 25,000 - a function of the amount of noise and the noise pattern. I could not do the same with the Q2 above 12,500 at most.

Although the Q2 has face recognition, I do not find it very usable except when the face takes up quite a bit of the frame. I suspect this is down to a combination of faces being smaller on an image from a 28mm lens (compared to the size they would be at the same distance with a longer lens) and a slower processor than the SL2-S. You can increase the hit rate by selecting a smaller frame - I think the AF then works only within the frame. Also, with SL2-S, when it finds two faces in the frame and outlines them, you can tell it which one you want with the joystick; I couldn't get this to work with the Q2 and its arrow pad. I have the SL2-S set permanently on iAF which switches automatically between AFs and AFc, which I find works well with face/eye recognition. The Q2 does not have iAF. Overall the Q2 AF for face recognition is disappointing.

You have to get used to the digital zooming of the Q2. Since it is non-destructive in raw (you always get the full frame to play with when you edit), you could just ignore it. But selecting a frame means that exposure metering only occurs within that frame, and (as noted above) AF also seems to work only within the frame. I find this useful, but it can lead you into problems: shooting drama action at 1/f and 1/2f I hoped to get reasonably sharp images. They are, but only at 28mm; images at 50mm or 75mm framing were often blurred because of subject movement, because you are shooting at around 1/28 or 1/56, not 1/100 - 1/ 300 - subject movement is all too obvious when you crop. It's logical, but one has to accept that the digital zoom has limitations.

I also wish the EVF zoomed in when you selected a smaller frame. Others may like seeing the bigger picture. I would also like to switch off the 75mm frame option to speed up swapping between the others.

Those are the cons - remember I have not had the Q2 long, so others may point out things I have misunderstood.

On the other hand, there is a lot to like: small, discreet, very quiet (that leaf shutter), labelled dials for aperture & shutter speed, both with quick toggle to auto settings, a practical macro setting, great lens, long lasting battery, more than enough pixels to play with.

I have not yet taken the Q2 away for travel/holidays, nor have I tried the video.

[pixeljohn22]

11 hours ago, acg69 said:

Q2 is alive and well in 2022! Great for everyday carry and certainly better than Leica’s low light monster, the SL2-s, in that respect. It is always going to be a compromise as you know. If you don’t mind the weight, the Sl2-s is better for night photography. If you only do B&W, the Q2M is better for night photography. If you want an all rounder, the Q2 is OK for night as well. You can see pictures that I have posted here for some idea; if it works for you, get it. Don’t wait for the Q3, especially since it may be a 60Mp thing, which, (correct me if I am wrong here guys) will not do wonders for the night stuff.

Thanks. Nice photos on your links. I'm leaning to the Q2 mainly due to the weight.

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, pixeljohn22 said:

Thanks. Nice photos on your links. I'm leaning to the Q2 mainly due to the weight.

Thank you! What other options are you looking at? If it is the SL2/SL2-S, it is no contest when it comes to weight. I wouldn't think of using mine for travel.

[pixeljohn22]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Thank you! What other options are you looking at? If it is the SL2/SL2-S, it is no contest when it comes to weight. I wouldn't think of using mine for travel.

Right now the Q2. I agree on the weight.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/26/2022 at 3:40 PM, pixeljohn22 said:

I'm interested in the Q2 as an everyday carry and travel camera. Would like to hear from Q2 owners as to how they are still getting along with this camera. I watched a youtube interview with a Leica exec and he said that there will be a Q3 but not this year. So one question that I have is how is the low light performance of the Q2? I realize that viewing low light photos is very subjective but I would love to hear your experiences or see some examples. I intend to do some night street photography too.

Thanks in advance!!

It's likely the Q3 will have the M11 sensor. The Q2 I limit to ISO 6400, the M11 to ISO 12,500. Neither are impressive at those limits. Personally? –> I would get a Q2M or SL2-S (w/small 28mm M lens) for night street photography.

[rocklogic]

I'm a relatively new owner of the Q2 (just over a week), and I'm absolutely smitten by it. Just for context, I moved from a fairly comprehensive Olympus system (E-M1X + multitude of pro lenses), but I found that I was slowly being hesitant to take out the camera. Maybe due to its size, or the fact that I now travel with a 4 year old fairly often. The biggest nail in the coffin was a recent overseas holiday, where I begrudgingly took my camera out - but wished that I had a smaller system.

Enter the Q2. The focal length is still getting me sometime to get used to, but one of my go-to lenses on the system was the 7-14mm (14-28mm equivalent), and while yes - I do miss the 35/50mm focal length, the quality out of the Q2 has been nothing short of impressive. 

I was also in your boat in April, wondering if I should have held out on a Q3, or do I just go with the Q2. I did my research, got over the FOMO of new things, and decided that the quality of the Q2 on its own merit would take me over the line. When the Q3 comes out, I'll probably reevaluate, but honestly - unless it comes with a 50mm lens, I'll probably keep the Q2. 

Hope that this will help you make a decision. My 2cents' worth, though, is that the Q2 is worth every cent it's asking for.

Cheers

[viramati]

I'm afraid the the low light performance of the Q2 is one of it's weak points especially if you compare it to some other camera systems. I find anything above iso 3200 can get really bad banding especially if you try to pull details from shadow areas. Compared to my Sony A series cameras this is pitiful (Have the A1 and A7r3) where I can get usable files up to iso 25000.If you want to do low light night photography I would definitely wait to see what a new Q3 brings to the table. I used to love my original Q but have to say since the advances that Sony have made in tracking AF, IQ etc performance I find the Q2 to be quite primitive in comparison though all the same it can be a great image making machine in the right circumstances.

 

some images here 

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!

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by viramati

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, viramati said:

some images here 

Good work!

[hansvons]

On 5/26/2022 at 11:40 PM, pixeljohn22 said:

So one question that I have is how is the low light performance of the Q2?

I've been thinking about this too because I contemplate buying a Q2 as a travel-friendly camera when not on assignments. My workhorse is the SL2-S in combination with the 24-90. That's about as heavy as it possibly can get when going for a mirrorless and a standard zoom. But it's a well-balanced combo and does an excellent job when journalistic work is on the table, especially in low-light (a Nikon/Canon combo would be more meaningful in terms of weight and AF, but the colours ...).

Ok. What I learned is this. The SL2-S is a true low-light monster with tons of juice deep in the shadows. But the 24-90 steals about 2 stops compared to the Q2. That's about the difference I'd expect in the camera's noise level. However, the SL2-S can be safely used without noise reduction and without colour compromise up to ISO 12,500 for pictures at a 2,448 long edge when exposed on the fat side. I figure that the Q2 delivers similar results at f 1,7 plus downsampled from 47mp raw to 2,448 jpg. And then there's always noise reduction, but that can't restore lost colour in the shadows at high ISOs.

[chris_tribble]

I’m more and more convinced by the Q2 as a companion camera.  It lives very happily with 2 SL2 bodies and an M10-R.  I really like the flexibility it offers with its close focus/ macro capacity and m learning to love 28mm again. I’m aware of a possible Q3 but think I’ll pass - the Q2 is great at night (I don’t need better than 6400 iso with an f1.8 lens and IBIS - and I’ve never found banding at 6400), gives great colour files, and converts well to B&W.  Birds? Q2 in the bag + SL2 with 90-280. Performance? The same mix or the two SL2 bodies with two zooms. Street? M10 + 35 Summicron asph or Q2. And so on.  Look at the exif info on images in my Flickr feed and you’ll get a sense of the mix.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by chris_tribble

[viramati]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

I've been thinking about this too because I contemplate buying a Q2 as a travel-friendly camera when not on assignments. My workhorse is the SL2-S in combination with the 24-90. That's about as heavy as it possibly can get when going for a mirrorless and a standard zoom. But it's a well-balanced combo and does an excellent job when journalistic work is on the table, especially in low-light (a Nikon/Canon combo would be more meaningful in terms of weight and AF, but the colours ...).

Ok. What I learned is this. The SL2-S is a true low-light monster with tons of juice deep in the shadows. But the 24-90 steals about 2 stops compared to the Q2. That's about the difference I'd expect in the camera's noise level. However, the SL2-S can be safely used without noise reduction and without colour compromise up to ISO 12,500 for pictures at a 2,448 long edge when exposed on the fat side. I figure that the Q2 delivers similar results at f 1,7 plus downsampled from 47mp raw to 2,448 jpg. And then there's always noise reduction, but that can't restore lost colour in the shadows at high ISOs.

The real problem is the possibility of banding in shadow areas at anything over iso 3200 though sometimes iso 6400 can work but it is a bit hit and miss sometimes it's there and sometimes it isn't (I shoot DNG and edit in Lr Classic). On the Q I used to be able to sort this to a degree by using Nik Dfine2 but for some reason it doesn't really work with Q2 files. I am surprised that Leica sensors  have never really been able to handle high iso the way my Sony's do.

Edited May 29, 2022 by viramati

[pixeljohn22]

11 hours ago, rocklogic said:

I'm a relatively new owner of the Q2 (just over a week), and I'm absolutely smitten by it. Just for context, I moved from a fairly comprehensive Olympus system (E-M1X + multitude of pro lenses), but I found that I was slowly being hesitant to take out the camera. Maybe due to its size, or the fact that I now travel with a 4 year old fairly often. The biggest nail in the coffin was a recent overseas holiday, where I begrudgingly took my camera out - but wished that I had a smaller system.

Enter the Q2. The focal length is still getting me sometime to get used to, but one of my go-to lenses on the system was the 7-14mm (14-28mm equivalent), and while yes - I do miss the 35/50mm focal length, the quality out of the Q2 has been nothing short of impressive. 

I was also in your boat in April, wondering if I should have held out on a Q3, or do I just go with the Q2. I did my research, got over the FOMO of new things, and decided that the quality of the Q2 on its own merit would take me over the line. When the Q3 comes out, I'll probably reevaluate, but honestly - unless it comes with a 50mm lens, I'll probably keep the Q2. 

Hope that this will help you make a decision. My 2cents' worth, though, is that the Q2 is worth every cent it's asking for.

Cheers

Thanks so much.

[Stuart Richardson]

I have a Q2 and like it very much, but I prefer the Ricoh GRIIIx as a compact camera to take with me for most occasions. On trips I would likely bring both. The Ricoh is just SO much smaller and the lens focal length is much more useful. The Q2 is marked as a 28mm lens, but the view is wider. In my tests it is closer to a 25mm lens. In shooting compared to my SL2 with 24mm Sigma, the Q2 was only a hair narrower. (Interestingly enough the 550 dollar Sigma also performed optically very very similarly, albeit starting at 3.5 and not 1.7). When cropped down to 40mm, the performance is very close to the Ricoh, which is of course a tiny fraction of the size and cost.

As for low light ability, I think that is very personal, and relative. It will depend primarily on what your expectations are and how much you crop (again, the downside to the camera being so wide). It is a 47mp stabilized camera with a 1.7 lens that by most anyone's judgement works well to at least 3200 ISO. That kind of performance was unheard of even a few years ago. For me, I have never come up against a high ISO issue...if the conditions were that dark to begin with, then the lighting tends to be really unflattering on people, and most non-people subjects would be better photographed using a tripod at that point.

So I would say this as a summary. If you want a high resolution, high quality camera for travel, used primarily for 25mm to 35mm angle of view compositions, the Q2 is very hard to beat. The sensor is exceptionally good in most normal lighting conditions, it has great color, very high sharpness and resolution. The ergonomics of the body are very good, but it is not a compact camera as such. The lens is fairly bulky  and the body is substantial. If you want a compact camera to carry every day in all situations, a camera like the Ricoh GRIIIx is in my opinion a better choice, as it is literally able to fit in a pocket, while having a very high quality lens. It is better as a snapshot camera, as it is easier to hold in one hand and just point and shoot. It also is available in 28mm, and you can get both for half the cost of the Q2 and still be ahead when it comes to weight (the Ricoh is 257g, the Q2 is 730g). That is what it is made for, and it does that better than the Q2. What the Q2 does better is make wide angle pictures that are on par quality wise with the best of Leica's larger system cameras, like the SL2 and M10R/M11, but in a smaller, lighter package.

In looking for pictures to share, I found that I really do not have that many from the Q2 that I consider good, but I have only had the camera since last fall. It is just too wide for my style of phtography I have plenty from the Ricoh. I should probably sell the Q2, but right now I am using it as the wide angle for my main system.

The red rock landscape and bird are the Q2, the BW is the ricoh...could not fit any more photos, sadly.

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!

[LocalHero1953]

I too had half an eye on the Q3 when I bought the Q2, but also decided that I would worry about a new model if and when it appeared. If the Q3 has a lot more pixels, but a much faster processor, so enabling practical face/eye recognition, and the EVF zooms to the selected frame, then I’m probably in, especially combined with better low light performance. 
If it is just more pixels with no faster performance then I will stick with my Q2. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

The Q2 has clarified one thing for me

Given a choice between more pixels and better low light performance, I would pick low light performance every time. 

I also made that choice when I traded the SL2 for the SL2-S, and have never regretted it.

[chris_tribble]

Well.... The attached are crops from a rare example of my using 64000.  The first is as exposed.  The second is with +3 stops over-exposure.  Looks useable to me...

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!

 

 

[chris_tribble]

I’m more and more convinced by the Q2 as a companion camera.  It lives very happily with 2 SL2 bodies and an M10-R.  I really like the flexibility it offers with its close focus/ macro capacity and m learning to love 28mm again. I’m aware of a possible Q3 but think I’ll pass - the Q2 is great at night (I don’t need better than 6400 iso with an f1.8 lens and IBIS), gives great colour farms, and converts well to B&W.  Birds? Q2 in the bag + SL2 with 90-280. Performance? The same mix or the two SL2 bodies with two zooms. Street? M10 + 35 Summicron asph or Q2. And so on.  Look at the exif info on images in my Flickr feed and you’ll get a sense of the mix.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[chris_tribble]

Correction - 6400!

I never bother with higher than that. A steady hand, f1.7 lens and IBIS.  Remember when 1600 was the highest iso film you could get? 😎