Might have to switch "permanently" to my Q2... :(

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Went out this morning to evaluate My M10R with 50mm Summicron against my Q2 with the 50mm crop.  I expected to see a noticeable difference in image quality in favor of the M10R/50.   I did see a noticeable difference....but it was the Q2 that produced the  better images.😱

TBF, other than slightly different color rendering, there was no visible difference in the two uncropped pics on my 16" MacBook pro.  They were both shot at f2 and same shutter speed /ISO.  But when cropping rather extensively, I was surprised to find that the Q2 image was noticeably sharper.   I cropped the 50mm 10R image considerably and then cropped the Q2 image to the same size.  It was sharper.  Cropped, It appeared to me that the M10R image was slightly out of focus in comparison.  So I'm coming to the conclusion that although I've never felt I have any difficulty focusing an M camera, it appears by the results that I do.  

I didn't think to do it but maybe I should reshoot at say, f4 or f8 and see if the results are the same since at F2 the 'cron is wide open but the Q2 is not...  I didn't use a tripod but the shutter speeds were in the 1/1500 range so I don't think camera shake could enter into it.

[irenedp]

The Q has two advantages over any M. The first (although because of the shutter speed it may not be relevant here) is that it is stabilized; the second is that it has autofocus. It should -unless you use the Visoflex or the liveview at 100% and even then- be more precise, particularly at F2. 

Second, you are comparing different lenses (which should not be all that relevant other than because you are comparing the center of one va the totality of the other). The Summilux at 2.0 is stopped down a bit -not too significant, but the bokeh of the 50 cron is much more than that of the 28, and that might make also harder to find the focus. It is really thin.

To make a fair comparison I would stop down both to about f8 and use the Visoflex with the focusing aids in the M10r. But if your thing is to shoot usually wide open and you don’t mind using the 28 and cropping, you will probably be better served with the Q or an SL -the SL lenses are optically outstanding-. 

[rich_]

I prefer shooting with the Ms but the Q2 does take a crisper photo in my experience when compared to my M10 with cron 35 asph.

My (lack of) technique, camera resolution and superior lens sharpness are all most likely the contributing factors!

it helped me accept enjoyment of photos irrespective of sharpness and I no longer chase the most perfect of lenses. So good things came from my discoveries!

[JoshuaR]

I don't doubt your findings (and I think @irenedp has good explanations for them), but I sold my Q2 to move to an M10—not even an R!—and have no plans to go back. Although the Q2 made wonderful images, it's not as fun and exciting to use as the M (for me). It's just two very different ways of taking pictures. Image quality is only part of it.

(I do think that the pictures I'm taking with my M10 and 35 Summilux FLE are more beautiful than the ones I took with my Q2.)

[Kiwimac]

Try blowing them up to A1 and see if you can tell the difference. 
 

On a laptop screen you probably wouldn’t tell the difference. 

[timo01]

I also sold last year my q2 and move to a m10!

The q2 is a great camera but not a M

I love it! 

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"On a laptop screen you probably wouldn’t tell the difference. "  

TRUE!  I even compared 90mm on my M10R with the Q2 cropped to the same visual size.  There is no useful difference on the computer screen OR on our 70" TV.     I tried to download them for this post but they are WAAAY too large for the website.  

 

 

 

[rich_]

Dupe
 

Edited May 27, 2023 by rich_
Dupe

[ramarren]

On 5/16/2023 at 3:41 AM, irenedp said:

The Q has two advantages over any M. The first (although because of the shutter speed it may not be relevant here) is that it is stabilized; the second is that it has autofocus. It should -unless you use the Visoflex or the liveview at 100% and even then- be more precise, particularly at F2. 

Second, you are comparing different lenses (which should not be all that relevant other than because you are comparing the center of one va the totality of the other). The Summilux at 2.0 is stopped down a bit -not too significant, but the bokeh of the 50 cron is much more than that of the 28, and that might make also harder to find the focus. It is really thin.

To make a fair comparison I would stop down both to about f8 and use the Visoflex with the focusing aids in the M10r. But if your thing is to shoot usually wide open and you don’t mind using the 28 and cropping, you will probably be better served with the Q or an SL -the SL lenses are optically outstanding-. 

Hmm. Comparing two such different camera/lens implementations is fraught with ways that make the tests approximate/inaccurate at best. 

Autofocus is not an advantage, it is a convenience. Presuming that the M's rangefinder is in proper calibration and you use it correctly, focus accuracy between the two cameras should be identical when considering the Q2's image cropped to the 50mm FoV.

Of course, the Q2 is a non-interchangeable lens camera with a lens and sensor stack matched specifically for best performance ... It might have a very different strength anti-aliasing filter, for instance, which will net increased resolution even on a cropped image area. The Summicron 50mm lens-basic design of the current series Summicron-M 50mm f/2—can only ever be approximately matched to the M10-R sensor since its optical design dates to about 1978-1979. The Q2 optical image stabilization is another issue ... an objective test seeking ultimate resolution of the cameras and lenses would have both cameras mounted on a tripod, image stabilization turned off in the Q2. ... And yes, when doing high resolution testing, I can see hand-held camera motion all the way up to 1/4000 second.

I have a recent series Summicron-M 50mm f/2 made in about 2008 IIRC. I've tested it extensively on many different cameras (M9, M-P240, M-D262, M10-M, M10-R, SL 601, CL, Sony A7, etc etc). It first achieves even illumination (+/- <0.3EV variation) across the full 35mm FoV at about f/4-4.5, and corner-edge resolution starts to peak between f/5.6 and f/8, and starts to fall off after f/11. That said, it produces lovely results wide open too. It's a wonderful lens, but it can't hold a candle, technically, to the much more recently designed APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH, or likely even the latest Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar Aspherical M, both of which are much much more modern designs created well after the digital revolution.

None of which matters one wit, really. If the Q2 produces the image quality you want, enjoy it. The 'Cron 50mm does a lovely job as well on M10-R and M10-M bodies. Counting pixels and comparing resolution charts isn't really a good use of your time when it comes to enjoying making photographs with either of these excellent cameras ... Producing wonderful photos is a much better use of time and energy. 

G