Agony over selling q2 for sony A7r4

[John240p]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

I know I'm posting in the SL section but all will become clear! 

I've been an avid Leica for a good few years, Ms since 8.2, dalliance with SL when first came out but as video camera so didnt really deliver and replaced with sony A7s, now have M10 and Q2. I've never really 'bonded' with the Q2 like I did with my Ms and I always seem to struggle with the AF, its OK but compared to things like Canon 1DX, all a bit too hit and miss; and when I'm turning control over to the camera I really want it to work! We have a 1 year old son who's doing loads of wonderful things but soooo much is OOF that its driving me nuts! so I'm considering for a fast AF system moving to sony. I've considered SL2, SL2-s and Panasonic but I'm not sure the AF will be any better than the Q2? Really AF in video is a must too.

 

Any thoughts and experiences much appreciated!

 

John 

 

 

 

 

 

[grahamc]

I haven't used Q2 or SL series autofocus but the Sony A7R4 autofocus and tracking (inc eye autofocus) is incredible 

Whilst I'm unsure how that generation of Sony compares to Nikon or Canon (there must be loads of articles comparing those 3 manufacturers for auto-focus systems though) , I'd be very confident that any of them beat the pants off Leica auto-focus tech 

The trade off of course is somewhat sterile images in comparison to Leica glass.  I don't buy into the 'Sony colours are crap' argument that you see frequently though - My A7Riv produces beautiful images .  Problem is I very rarely/never use it since picking up a Leica M.  BUT I don't have a toddler ! 

In short the A7Riv is great and drives itself.   

Edited August 17, 2022 by grahamc

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

21 minutes ago, John240p said:

 

Any thoughts and experiences much appreciated!

 

John

Canon R Series.

[Cobram]

28 minutes ago, John240p said:

Hi All,

I know I'm posting in the SL section but all will become clear! 

I've been an avid Leica for a good few years, Ms since 8.2, dalliance with SL when first came out but as video camera so didnt really deliver and replaced with sony A7s, now have M10 and Q2. I've never really 'bonded' with the Q2 like I did with my Ms and I always seem to struggle with the AF, its OK but compared to things like Canon 1DX, all a bit too hit and miss; and when I'm turning control over to the camera I really want it to work! We have a 1 year old son who's doing loads of wonderful things but soooo much is OOF that its driving me nuts! so I'm considering for a fast AF system moving to sony. I've considered SL2, SL2-s and Panasonic but I'm not sure the AF will be any better than the Q2? Really AF in video is a must too.

 

Any thoughts and experiences much appreciated!

 

John 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm in somehow similar position; two daughters (8 and 6 years old) and a newborn (1 month). Based on last few years I can conclude AF is a nice thing to have, but it is not necessary or decisive parameter for great shots. A good 28mm lens and some "prefocusing" technique will do the trick. If you plan to take many "bokeh" portraits than SL with its great SL 75mm Summicron lens is just great. My colleague use it veryday for his family "bokeh 🙂 " photos of his kids with great success.

In my humble opinion "bokeh" portraits lose their value with time while "wide angle lens" photos, with a lot of background information etc... tend to be more prominent or interesting memories. 

[charlesphoto99]

AF can be a crutch, and unless it's extremely well implemented, it can miss the shot more than make it (at least ime). Best reserved for really long lenses.

The key to shooting young ones is to get loose. Get down to their level to begin with (don't 'hover' over them) and concern oneself more about light and feel and moment than focus. (though if focusing period is really not working for you then best get the Sony). 28mm can be limiting for traditional 'portraits' but is great for everything else (see below, both with M9 and 28 'cron). I probably shot nearly 75,000 images of my (now) 10 and 13 year olds, all with M9 or M10, mostly 28 but also 50 and 90. . 

I owned a Q for about week, and got frustrated with the AF compared to manual focusing on my M's, the M being much quicker and more accurate, though I also have thirty years of practice. With kids, one has to shoot a LOT, and then pick the few that work. Also, keep in mind, it gets way more interesting as they get older, lol! Though now my 13 year old son is, "Why are you taking my picture, dad??!!" 

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!

[grahamc]

7 hours ago, MikeMike88 said:

I’d say that if less then sterile photos  are that important to OP then I’m sure with some finesse he can muddy or filter them up someway in the various editing programs. I’d also argue that nice clean photos of childhood milestones may be better super clean. But as always YMMV in such things. 

Yes I agree. It can definitely be done. Bearing in mind that the comment I made comes from the perspective that I use pre-asph Leica glass also, so prefer the “less than perfect” look. 
 

I spent some time with side by side shots from Sony and Leica, and developed some post production presets to get the Sony shots as close as I could to the look of the Leica shots. And got i got to something I was really happy with that I apply to anything I take on Sony. The images look quite consistent.  
 

For shooters that use modern glass I doubt this is as much of a concern anyway.   Sony lenses have outstanding performance but “if” the OP wants more character from them there are certain ones to pick out over others, like any system.  

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keep the Q2 and buy a cheaper Fuji (or Sony).

We have a Fuji XF10 that takes fantastic images. 

[LocalHero1953]

I used a CL with our grandchildren when they were tiny. Now they are older and more aware of the camera, and I use a Q2. 

i don’t think the Q2 has that much better AF than the CL, and it’s not as good as my SL2-S. I quite accept that there are better cameras for fast AF out there but…..

I have found myself far less limited in child photography by AF than by getting into the right position to take the shot, for reasons of lighting, composition, readiness for that momentary expression etc. But then I have always believed that our photography is limited far less by our technical equipment than we like to believe, and far more by our limited talent, imagination and skills. And I include myself in that critique!

The advantage of the Q2 is that it can do so much without changing lenses, and you can switch from auto mode to fully manual just using the dials. So you have no digital or lens choice distractions getting between you and your shoot - and no excuses!

Edited August 18, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[BernardC]

I agree with many of the comments above. Fast AF isn't my limitation when photographing children. It's not a sports match, you aren't there to get a shot of the ball going into the net.

They key to child "portraiture" is to tell the narrative from the child's point of view. That's not easy when you are 4 times their height! Sharpness is over-rated; after all, childhood goes by in a blur.

Many of my most successful child images use blur to tell a story. For instance the story of a group of children playing while their parents are doing some boring stuff at a reception. You can choose to get such an image absolutely sharp and frozen, but then you aren't telling the story from the children's point of view.

[John240p]

Thanks for so many interesting experiences  and opinions, actually made me think I should try more with my M10 again!

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, John240p said:

Thanks for so many interesting experiences  and opinions, actually made me think I should try more with my M10 again!

 

Yes, and maybe you even go the opposite route, get yourself a vintage film camera, a couple of BW rolls and a shaker and try the slow lane? I did it, and boy it’s so rewarding. 

[lencap]

Lots of good suggestions in the thread.  I tried an M body for the grandkids (M9 was the top camera at the time), but found that the 28-50mm lenses I usually used didn't work for the longer length shots more common with kids.  I tried zone focus with a 135, but it required a lot of cropping and too much energy and time in PhotoShop.  

A lot depends on what you want for the long term.  If that still is a Leica system I'd suggest a used Nikon D5500 could be a good solution, which is what I decided.  It's an APS-C sensor with a 1.5 crop factor using lightweight lenses.  2 Zooms will cover the entire focal gambit: 18-55 and 75-300 give you 28-80 and 110 to 450 focal lengths.  You can buy a brand new rig (D5600) for under $1K or buy a used D5500 setup for far less (essentially the same sensor, minor changes to body).  I used this myself for grandchildren.  I bought mine new but refurbished at a well known NY camera site with two lenses for under $600.  Kept it for a while and sold it for $400.  A cheap way to capture images with high quality potential.  If I wanted a "candid" shot the longer focal lengths were important, and that's not a problem with 2 zooms on the D5500.  With the Leica Q or M9 it didn't work.  You may have other thoughts.

I still have my original Q titanium and a SL 601 (added within the last year) with the 24-90 Leica Zoom and a Sigma 50MM ART lens.  The Leicas are my "photography/art" cameras.  The Nikon D5500 is better than an iPhone, got the shots I wanted in rough and tumble situations, and with a 24MP AA sensor takes good pictures including video.  Here's a nice review by Ming Thein of the D5500 which he also compares to the Q: https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/12/21/review-the-nikon-d5500/#more-12256

 

 

[pgh]

On 8/17/2022 at 10:29 AM, charlesphoto99 said:

AF can be a crutch, and unless it's extremely well implemented, it can miss the shot more than make it (at least ime). Best reserved for really long lenses.

I feel like this was true in 2004 with digital SLR's - and yea maybe applies to today's Leica's because this has never been their strong suit. But - the newer Sony cameras basically do not miss. I only sold mine because it just wasn't that enjoyable to use - because it did everything so consistently and correctly there was little magic left for me. It feels like shooting with a computer and not really a camera. But the results were the most consistent of anything I've ever used. 

OP - If you care about results over process, get the Sony. If you care about enjoying the process, use an M. If you want your M lenses to couple well with a mirrorless, an SL2 is nice. 

If you want to photograph your kids, use your smartphone. Seriously - imo unless you are trying to make high art out of pics of your kids (an ethically fraught pursuit anyways), it is just not worth a separate camera. This is what I do. I mean, I still use my M10 sometimes tbh because it's fun, but I don't sweat it if I can't keep up. It's good practice anyways. 

[huwm]

iPhone 13Pro really is good for 'family snaps'

Leicas reserved for more 'thoughtful' stuff

[gotium]

When mine were little I found AF cameras too frustrating to use and I actually gave up and moved all the way to film! I shot for a few years with the Zeiss Ikon and a couple of tiny lenses, stopped down when needed, and have some fantastic images from that time. Looking back I don't think I would have done better with AF - different yes, but not necessarily better. 

AF has come a long way since then though. And my favorite films are no more.