Q2 In 2022 - Input Please

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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'.

Great photo and I get it. This is all for fun. Looking at your photo, though, I see some exposure latitude in the subject's face and some DOF latitude since the hands and face on the right side of the image are already a little out of focus. I'm going to assume that to stop the motion of your subject you're looking at 1/125th and to get focus on the main subject and the person to her right let's say you want f2.8. That's EV9 at ISO100 making it EV1 at ISO 25,000. I have a hard time believing that scene needed EV1.

Autoexposure settings (especially a high auto-ISO) definitely take the burden off the photographer allowing them to shoot faster and think more about composition. The camera itself doesn't need it and could take a comparable shot at a lower ISO.

Edited May 31, 2022 by malligator

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, malligator said:

Great photo and I get it. This is all for fun. Looking at your photo, though, I see some exposure latitude in the subject's face and some DOF latitude since the hands and face on the right side of the image are already a little out of focus. I'm going to assume that to stop the motion of your subject you're looking at 1/125th and to get focus on the main subject and the person to her right let's say you want f2.8. That's EV9 at ISO100 making it EV1 at ISO 25,000. I have a hard time believing that scene needed EV1.

Autoexposure settings (especially a high auto-ISO) definitely take the burden off the photographer allowing them to shoot faster and think more about composition. The camera itself doesn't need it and could take a comparable shot at a lower ISO.

It was shot with the Summicron-SL 90 at f/9 and 1/80s, and this is an uncropped image. It was theatre in the round, a group of 4-5 squaddies listening to a sergeant, a smoke machine, and some ground level spotlights. My intention was to shoot at a small aperture to get as many faces and fingers close to focus as possible. Also from my recollection, this was the second run of this scene, and I knew that the fingers added to the composition and were significant in the action (they were faking the look of trees of the wood of Dunsinane) - so I didn't just want to focus on an eyelash (always a risk with a Summicron-90). In Lightroom, the main luminance changes were a reduction in Exposure by one stop and a big boost to contrast.

I could have got away with a stop or two less exposure, but the reality was that the action was moving quickly, I was moving quickly so as not to get trodden on, and I wanted to to avoid accidentally shooting the direct spotlight. So I trusted the camera to get me usable shots in A-mode with AutoISO and face recognition AF* - which it did. 

Could I have got away with shooting at 6400 - probably. I would still rather have a camera that can do this at 25,000. I hope the Q3 can.

It's always interesting discussing how a photo was taken and how it could have been taken better, but that probably needs another thread!

 

* This whole set of images is my answer to those who say the SL2-S can't do face/eye AF in low light.

[Olaf_ZG]

It seems that with high iso (expectations), most of people forget about flash to balance the light.

in most cases, (fill) flash gives so much better results.

[SrMi]

FWIW, Ted Forbes has just published a new YT video: Is the Leica Q2 worth it in 2022?

It seems to discuss some of the questions raised in this thread.

[pixeljohn22]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

FWIW, Ted Forbes has just published a new YT video: Is the Leica Q2 worth it in 2022?

It seems to discuss some of the questions raised in this thread.

Nice video about the Q2 today. Thanks.

[chris_tribble]

On 5/31/2022 at 7:45 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

It seems that with high iso (expectations), most of people forget about flash to balance the light.

in most cases, (fill) flash gives so much better results.

That would be another debate - but I’d not recommend using flash in any of the performance spaces I work in. Being able to work with available light is fundamental to this kind of photography…

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I guess this is the perfect example of, "give someone an inch..."

Constraining the Q2 to ISO 6400 it will shoot sharp images at EV 1.5. Let it max out at 50k (iirc) and you're in minus EV territory. I mean, my God, I can't even imagine having that sort of low-light latitude yet it was called 'pitiful' in this very thread.

The Q2, like just about any modern professional digital camera, can work in any available light. My question is...why can't the people using it?

[LocalHero1953]

2 minutes ago, malligator said:

I guess this is the perfect example of, "give someone an inch..."

Constraining the Q2 to ISO 6400 it will shoot sharp images at EV 1.5. Let it max out at 50k (iirc) and you're in minus EV territory. I mean, my God, I can't even imagine having that sort of low-light latitude yet it was called 'pitiful' in this very thread.

The Q2, like just about any modern professional digital camera, can work in any available light. My question is...why can't the people using it?

Frankly, I find this generalised offensiveness tedious. Just accept that not every photographer photographs the same subjects in the same way as you.

[malligator]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Frankly, I find this generalised offensiveness tedious. Just accept that not every photographer photographs the same subjects in the same way as you.

Sure we do. There's nothing new under the sun. None of us are reinventing the medium or pushing boundaries. Theatrical photography existed before 100,000 ISO cameras.

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, malligator said:

Sure we do. There's nothing new under the sun. None of us are reinventing the medium or pushing boundaries. Theatrical photography existed before 100,000 ISO cameras.

And was limited by technology then as, mutatis mutandis, now. If technology improves then the boundaries move. We can choose to take advantage of it, or not.