Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Flash Gordon,

I might add a Q2 but working with the SL2, i want to make sure files are close enough. 

What's tour feeling ? Does raw output from the q2 match the image from the Sl2+ Apo lenses, regarding contrast and colors ?Or do you have to apply much correction to make them match together ? 

 

Edited by Mak67
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mak67 said:

Hi Flash Gordon,

I might add a Q2 but working with the SL2, i want to make sure files are close enough. 

What's tour feeling ? Does raw output from the q2 match the image from the Sl2+ Apo lenses, regarding contrast and colors ?Or do you have to apply much correction to make them match together ? 

 

Not at all. I mean - overall yes-ish, but I always have to fuss with color and WB for every single wedding (I use both Q2 and SL2-S, more here if you're interested). That's actually why I got the 28SL. I'm kind of tired of having to break stride whenever a Q2 photo pops into the mix of SL2-S photos while edging a wedding. It'll just be a lot quicker to edit with them all using the same camera. 

Edited by hellobrandonscott
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Q2M and have looked at SL bodies and SL-APO lenses; I think we're comparing apples to oranges.  I believe Leica intended them for different uses/situations.  For instance, I can fit my Q2 in my coat pocket but I would have to carry an SL-body w/lens in a bag.

Also keep in mind that a Q2 sells for $5,800 while an SL2s w/28mm APO lens is around $10,400!  Given that alone, the Q2 is a bargain.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Qs have a very different philosophy. They're light weight, compact and discreet. It makes them perfect for street, travel, reportage and street portraiture, where corner to corner sharpness doesn't, at least to me, matter.

A lot of people complain about the weight of the SL2. I mostly use mine with the 50/1.4. It doesn't really bother me and I take it everywhere with my Q2. If anything it's the distraction factor of SL2 that's the downside. People react to it very differently from the Qs. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't have the 28 SL, I do have a q2 and an SL2 and my feeling is that the files from the SL do have a bit more grunt, tend to have a bit more dynamic range and are generally richer.. This is of course, not to say the Q2 is a slouch, quite the opposite, it's extraordinary.. 

The thing, of course, is that the Q2 compared to the SL2 with most SL lenses, is tiny. If I'm shooting people, generally the Q is way less confronting, and I'll get a fairly different response. I can't just leave an SL on my dashboard and grab it whenever I see something. 

They might not be the same lenses, and one might be sharper than the other, but my thoughts are "who cares".. They both do different things VERY well. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sohail said:

Agreed. Also, to get this shot (the kind I like to take), you need good wrist strength and supple knees to maintain good composition. Difficult for me to pull off with the SL2. With the Q, it'a breeze and yes much less intimidating. Maybe if they bring out a flip screen on the SL3 (and the Q3), it will open up all sorts of possibilities.

Why not just sit on the ground with the subject? Works well for me, less physical strain, and tends to make the person/people being photographed feel less like a subject and more like a partner in making the photo. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sohail said:

Agreed. Also, to get this shot (the kind I like to take), you need good wrist strength and supple knees to maintain good composition. Difficult for me to pull off with the SL2. With the Q, it'a breeze and yes much less intimidating. Maybe if they bring out a flip screen on the SL3 (and the Q3), it will open up all sorts of possibilities.

Love the photo and the colors.  Q2 looks to be a great add.

Robb

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Sohail:

Agreed. Also, to get this shot (the kind I like to take), you need good wrist strength and supple knees to maintain good composition. Difficult for me to pull off with the SL2. With the Q, it'a breeze and yes much less intimidating. Maybe if they bring out a flip screen on the SL3 (and the Q3), it will open up all sorts of possibilities.

Wonderful portrait no matter which camera you used!

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, hellobrandonscott said:

Why not just sit on the ground with the subject? Works well for me, less physical strain, and tends to make the person/people being photographed feel less like a subject and more like a partner in making the photo. 

Not with my knees! :)

Also, sitting is still too high up.

Edited by Sohail
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

best walk around camera

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you share some pics please?

BTW, the Q also has a great macro feature. It's little faster and apparently wider too. And yes the form factor is a major reason.

3 hours ago, Jacobjuul said:

I have the SL28 paired with the 601, to my eye it beat my Q across the board, but that's not why I'd get a Q. You get a Q for the form factor. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 10:35 AM, hellobrandonscott said:

Not at all. I mean - overall yes-ish, but I always have to fuss with color and WB for every single wedding (I use both Q2 and SL2-S, more here if you're interested). That's actually why I got the 28SL. I'm kind of tired of having to break stride whenever a Q2 photo pops into the mix of SL2-S photos while edging a wedding. It'll just be a lot quicker to edit with them all using the same camera. 

The Q2 is MUCH closer to the SL2 than the SL2S. I see why there’s a colour mismatch for you but it’s less and often not noticeable with the SL2. Same base silicon and probably CFA.

Mind you we ended up not bothering to try for precise matches when we still shot weddings full time. We were mixing Leica and Canon. Didn’t seem to matter in the end as much as we thought. But I get why people do spend the time. We did for years.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a Q2, but I do have both 35 and 28 (and someday the 21) Summicron SLs.  I'll post a quick comparison, both lenses at f.2,0, 4.0, 8.0.  lens shade held against the window glass for stability, same view.  I use Capture One, which shows the 28 image with a big band of potential image area outside the corrected view.

SL APO 35 f/8

 

SL APO 28 f/8

 

SL APO 35 f/2.0

 

SL APO 28 f/2.0

 

You can click through to Flickr for larger sizes. The cottages across the street were put up sometime in the late 1860s for wealthy Bostonians to come to the country during the hot summer months.  This area was an orchard and, not far away, stockyards for cattle.

Here's f/4, first the 35:

 

and next the 28

 

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

and finally finally:  here is the difference between the "software corrected" and the uncorrected  version of the shot above.  Uncorrected, the image is a bit wider and has slightly different proportions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...