Q2 In 2022 - Input Please

[viramati]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, chris_tribble said:

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!

 

 

I can certainly see some banding there

 

[pixeljohn22]

13 minutes ago, viramati said:

I can certainly see some banding there

 

This may sound like a stupid question but can someone explain “banding” to me? What causes it and how to see it? Thanks!!!

[hansvons]

14 minutes ago, viramati said:

I can certainly see some banding there

What do you mean by banding in that case? Do you mean 8bit induced banding in areas such as a blue sky? Or do you mean the visibility of an underlying grid of the sensor? 

[viramati]

Here are some sort of extreme example screen shots taken at iso 6400

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!

[viramati]

both DNG files in lightroom Classic. Import and using the auto exposure feature

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!

[viramati]

If you get your exposure right and don't want to lift the shadows it's not so much of an issue

 

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@viramati I totally see what you mean. I‘d say it‘s not what typically in digital imaging is meant by banding (8 Bit-induced bands on homogeneous surfaces), but it surely is some sort of banding in terms of stripy artifacts. 
 

I‘ve seen that many times with Red cinema cameras. It kind of reveals the underlying sensor‘s grid (totally unscientific assumption). I don’t find it a real issue as long as it’s correlated to significant underexposure and/or extreme shadow lifting. 
 

Besides, a nice, sophisticated  accommodation  

[LocalHero1953]

A good example of where the Q2 works well for family/social/casual. In the park this morning with my grandchildren, for a bit of zipwire action.

I had selected the tightest "75mm" crop, A-mode, f/1.7. Set to AFc, face recognition, but, in the absence of a face, it defaulted to spot.
The first one shows the image as imported to Lightroom.
The second one shows the same, but with the camera-reported crop removed.
The third shows the final crop with a bit of adjustment.

For this purpose, I found AF fast and accurate enough, and the exposure was well-balanced for the bit of the scene I was interested in.

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 30, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[fionapereira]

On 5/28/2022 at 1:10 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

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.

Hi there! Is the SL2-S (with M lens) a good second camera to pair with the Q2?

[LocalHero1953]

6 minutes ago, fionapereira said:

Hi there! Is the SL2-S (with M lens) a good second camera to pair with the Q2?

It depends what your pairing criteria are! I just use them for different purposes: the SL2-S for specific photoshoots where I want full versatility and I'm not worried about weight; the Q2 for social/casual/travel where sight/weight and discreet use are important. I tried using the Q2 alongside the SL2-S for theatrical rehearsals, and found it unsatisfactory - I don't really want 28mm for drama, and I don't want to look through a 28mm view, even if I'm going to crop later. So I doubt I will ever use the SL2-S and Q2 side-by-side.  

I have hardly ever used the SL or SL2-S with M lenses. I would rather use a M body with M lenses.

Edited May 30, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[pixeljohn22]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

A good example of where the Q2 works well for family/social/casual. In the park this morning with my grandchildren, for a bit of zipwire action.

I had selected the tightest "75mm" crop, A-mode, f/1.7. Set to SFc, face recognition, but, in the absence of a face, it defaulted to spot.
The first one shows the image as imported to Lightroom.
The second one shows the same, but with the camera-reported crop removed.
The third shows the final crop with a bit of adjustment.

For this purpose, I found AF fast and accurate enough, and the exposure was well-balanced for the bit of the scene I was interested in.

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!

 

Nice. Thanks. 

[malligator]

On 5/29/2022 at 2:11 PM, viramati said:

both DNG files in lightroom Classic. Import and using the auto exposure feature

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!

I don't understand the issue. In both cases the darker, more realistic photos are better.

As a dedicated film M shooter considering the Q2 I'm confused by some people's insistence that camera's be able to see in the dark. I'm assuming if I were to take the photo shown above with TX400 you'd probably not even see the portrait of the woman...and that's okay. Chiaroscuro is a thing.

Let's say the room in the photo had it's lights on (not just the desk lamp). It would probably be ~EV5 (at night). I would shoot it at 1/30@1.4 ISO100. Let's say we up the ISO to 3200 (as some have suggested is the max for the Q2). That would give me 1/125@f4 which would keep motion blur to a minimum with a reasonable DOF...or I could keep the aperture and shutter the same and brighten the scene by 5 stops. Why on earth would I need anything more than that?

Edited May 31, 2022 by malligator

[Herr Barnack]

On 5/26/2022 at 5:40 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!!

The Q2 is an outstanding camera but high ISO shooting is its Achilles' heel IMHO.  ISO 3200-6400 is about as high as you can go without noise becoming a problem.  If you want to make large prints, I would try to stay at ISO 1600 or lower.  The f/1.7 maximum aperture helps a  lot in that regard.

The Q3 will probably appear in 2023, and will probably have a 6+ month wait until it becomes readily available, so we are talking a year to year and a half from now.  For me, it would be hard to wait that long for the Q3.

Another possibility - if you have an interest in black and white imaging - would be to get a Q2 Monochrom to keep you occupied till the Q3 lands.  The Q2M would be a fantastic choice for a lot of applications - particularly street, urban and night photography.  The Q2M is said to have a viable ISO in the 20,000 to 30,000 range or even higher, depending on subject matter and the way you want to render your subject in terms of digital "grain."

[jaapv]

The main problem with low light shooting, ISO and noise is that most photographers tend to underexpose with night scenes. The camera being fooled by highlights is no help either. (or the photographer trying to "save" them, often needlessly) If one exposes liberally, and uses spot metering to pick out the areas that matter photographically, one can use far higher ISO values than suggested here. The histogram in the EVF is a big help.

[viramati]

55 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The main problem with low light shooting, ISO and noise is that most photographers tend to underexpose with night scenes. The camera being fooled by highlights is no help either. (or the photographer trying to "save" them, often needlessly) If one exposes liberally, and uses spot metering to pick out the areas that matter photographically, one can use far higher ISO values than suggested here. The histogram in the EVF is a big help.

I would agree which is why I added that correct exposure is all important but all the same high iso is nit it's strong point

Edited May 31, 2022 by viramati

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, malligator said:

Why on earth would I need anything more than that?

Only you can tell, and I guess you don't need more. 
Others do. This was shot at ISO 25,000. When shooting theatre, I set the SL2-S in A-mode with AutoISO, so I just set the maximum limit. The higher the ISO limit I can set, the greater the flexibility I have with shutter speed (stopping action) and aperture (DoF for multiple faces in a scene). I would take a camera that could shoot with good colour and noise above ISO 25,000, if it had other features I want as well (including a good price!)

I would also like my cameras, in an ideal world, to have similar levels of performance, so they can be used together. The Q2 does not match the SL2-S in low light, but that's not a big problem for me - I didn't buy it expecting it to match the SL2-S in low light, and it has plenty of other qualities. 

Of course, none of us have photographic 'needs' - life goes on without them. They are all 'wants'.

Edited May 31, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[viramati]

5 hours ago, malligator said:

I don't understand the issue. In both cases the darker, more realistic photos are better.

As a dedicated film M shooter considering the Q2 I'm confused by some people's insistence that camera's be able to see in the dark. I'm assuming if I were to take the photo shown above with TX400 you'd probably not even see the portrait of the woman...and that's okay. Chiaroscuro is a thing.

Let's say the room in the photo had it's lights on (not just the desk lamp). It would probably be ~EV5 (at night). I would shoot it at 1/30@1.4 ISO100. Let's say we up the ISO to 3200 (as some have suggested is the max for the Q2). That would give me 1/125@f4 which would keep motion blur to a minimum with a reasonable DOF...or I could keep the aperture and shutter the same and brighten the scene by 5 stops. Why on earth would I need anything more than that?

I just posted them for illustration purposes to highlight the Q2 performance limits

[Ouroboros]

On 5/29/2022 at 6:21 PM, chris_tribble said:

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!

 

 

The obvious response to that is ‘not to me, it doesn’t!’  
  Realistically, no one in their right mind would torture the exposure with +3 stops at iso 6400 with an expectation of pleasing their client if the image is being paid for but the images on this thread are helpful in illustrating the fact that low light hand held photography beyond iso1600-3200 is not the Q2’s forte.  To be fair to the Q2 it is probably within perfectly acceptable limits for many, as it would be for me.

I’ve frequently been tempted by the Q2 as an alternative to carrying the M10-R and a couple of lenses for travel and hillwalking.  Low light hand holding capability of the Q2 is not a deal breaker for me because I use a tripod when practicality is challenged, but the prospect of a Q3 is difficult to ignore now.   

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Ouroboros

[chris_tribble]

5 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

The obvious response to that is ‘not to me, it doesn’t!’  
  Realistically, no one in their right mind would torture the exposure with +3 stops at iso 6400 with an expectation of pleasing their client if the image is being paid for but the images on this thread are helpful in illustrating the fact that low light hand held photography beyond iso1600-3200 is not the Q2’s forte.  To be fair to the Q2 it is probably within perfectly acceptable limits for many, as it would be for me.

I’ve frequently been tempted by the Q2 as an alternative to carrying the M10-R and a couple of lenses for travel and hillwalking.  Low light hand holding capability of the Q2 is not a deal breaker for me because I use a tripod when practicality is challenged, but the prospect of a Q3 is difficult to ignore now.   

Hmmm - I hope I didn't give the impression that I'd be happy with the +3 stop push image. One of the reasons that I don't use ultra-high ISO that much (or feel the need for it) is that I'm happy to accept that a dark scene is a dark scene.  The image below was with the M240 at 1/15th / ISO 1600. It was dark - a tiny amount of stage lighting but mainly the cigarette lighter.  The client was very happy.

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!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[benqui]

To me the Q2 is a perfect travel camera. It works for everything, landscape but I also did a lot of portraits with this camera. I limit the ISO to 6400 and never had any problems with it. But I have to admit, that I am not a night photographer. But you will never find „the“ perfect camera, but to me the Q2 is the perfect compromise.