New: Leica Q3 with 60 MP BSI Sensor

[TDE-Photo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 8 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

I take it you have a better (more constructive) idea? Please tell.

You have one underexposed shot, fine correct it in post and next time while shooting, I mean you have a EVF and a histogram. But why do you make a complete overexposed version of the photo? There is a way between both results.

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, TDE-Photo said:

You have one underexposed shot, fine correct it in post and next time while shooting, I mean you have a EVF and a histogram. But why do you make a complete overexposed version of the photo? There is a way between both results.

You have overlooked his question asking for advice. Next time you could provide it rather than unhelpful criticism.
Did nobody ever help you along the way when you were learning?

[Qwertynm]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb reynoldsyoung:

Any advice on low light settings?

Shooting people in low light settings I‘d suggest setting your shutter somewhere between 1/60 and 1/250 depending on how fast they are moving, AutoISO and Aperture depending on how much DoF you need/want. Spot metering on a face and shoot raw. 
 

I‘d rather have a noisy shot than a blurry shot. Noise can be corrected in post, motion blur not really. LR AI noise reduction is a game changer imho. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Qwertynm
typos

[reynoldsyoung]

18 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There are a number of possible problems here:

• The camera has set the exposure for the artificial lighting not the scene you want to see. You will have to make some manual adjustments to exposure (see below).
• Your ISO is probably too low for the lighting. The camera may be set to default longest exposure of 1/8 sec, and the scene just needs more exposure.
• The white balance is way off. If you're shooting raw, you can correct this in post.

In your shoes I would have set AutoISO, and set the ISO upper limit at 12500.

There are several ways you can proceed. I normally start with AutoISO, aperture priority, set the thumb dial to Exposure Compensation, watch the histogram, and adjust exposure compensation until I have a well-balanced histogram.

You can go fully manual, setting shutter, aperture and ISO yourself, but watch the histogram.

You can go fully auto (ISO, aperture, shutter), but use centre weighted metering.

All the above apply to any digital camera.

With the Q2 and, I assume the Q3 (which I don't have), you can set the crop to the central part (e.g. 50-75mm) - make sure the crop box excludes the lights. The metering should then work only on the central figure, not the surrounding lights. The crop function is useful not for cropping, but for controlling where the exposure metering and AF work.

As for the white balance, if you get that right, then the background will be very blue! You can do some clever work in Photoshop to selectively mask the foreground and adjust the WB only on that part, but you will have to decide if it is worth the effort. Welcome to the world of mixed lighting! 

 

Just so helpful....and, in many ways, so obvious.  Oh, the things I forget in the heat of the moment!!  Many thanks....

[reynoldsyoung]

4 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

Shooting people in low light settings I‘d suggest setting your shutter somewhere between 1/60 and 1/250 depending on how fast they are moving, AutoISO and Aperture depending on how much DoF you need/want. Spot metering on a face and shoot raw. 
 

I‘d rather have a noisy shot than a blurry shot. Noise can be corrected in post, motion blur not really. LR AI noise reduction is a game changer imho. 

Just great stuff....thanks so much, indeed!  

[jackpinoh]

Just ordered the Q3, which will be my first Leica, from B&H.  There is a quality about Q3 images that I can't get with my current camera systems. I suspect it will be months before it arrives. 

[AlanD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, reynoldsyoung said:

Just so helpful....and, in many ways, so obvious.  Oh, the things I forget in the heat of the moment!!  Many thanks....

The highlights can be brought down.  Edited your JPEG just with my iPhone, I was able to get this:

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!

that will give it a more natural look.

For in camera JPEG, take advantage of iDR and set it to the max.  It doesn’t touch the DNG files, but it does exactly what everyone does in post which is to boost shadows and decrease highlights.

These high backlit scenes are always hard to shoot in the absence of a flash.  Modern cameras with ultra low noise in the shadows will let you achieve great results*

*Direct flash can help reduce the appearance of wrinkles.  Having even a very small fill flash can work wonders.

[reynoldsyoung]

47 minutes ago, AlanD said:

The highlights can be brought down.  Edited your JPEG just with my iPhone, I was able to get this:

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!

that will give it a more natural look.

For in camera JPEG, take advantage of iDR and set it to the max.  It doesn’t touch the DNG files, but it does exactly what everyone does in post which is to boost shadows and decrease highlights.

These high backlit scenes are always hard to shoot in the absence of a flash.  Modern cameras with ultra low noise in the shadows will let you achieve great results*

*Direct flash can help reduce the appearance of wrinkles.  Having even a very small fill flash can work wonders.

Just masterful, Alan...all of this is getting me back on track.  Should have better images next time thanks to you!!

[AlanD]

8 hours ago, reynoldsyoung said:

Just masterful, Alan...all of this is getting me back on track.  Should have better images next time thanks to you!!

Thanks.  I wrote a whole series of posts about the Q2’s subtle color superiority/signature, but that shot you took is a great example of what the Q3 excels at (recovering underexposed shots)

For C1, you may be ok with auto adjust and then applying the Smart Style, IQ Professor 

 

[Cheesehead]

11 hours ago, AlanD said:

The highlights can be brought down.  Edited your JPEG just with my iPhone, I was able to get this:

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!

that will give it a more natural look.

For in camera JPEG, take advantage of iDR and set it to the max.  It doesn’t touch the DNG files, but it does exactly what everyone does in post which is to boost shadows and decrease highlights.

These high backlit scenes are always hard to shoot in the absence of a flash.  Modern cameras with ultra low noise in the shadows will let you achieve great results*

*Direct flash can help reduce the appearance of wrinkles.  Having even a very small fill flash can work wonders.

Would you explain how you change the iDR on the JPEG. Is that a setting only on the Q3 or is it something I may have overlooked on the Q2 as well?

I just found it in the Firmware 4.0 instructions.  Thank you for reminding me.

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Cheesehead

[AlanD]

40 minutes ago, Cheesehead said:

Would you explain how you change the iDR on the JPEG. 

Yup, a feature in 4.0 of the Q2.  That was what convinced me to go for the Q2 Disney when I knew Q3 was around the corner.  

You found it in the manual.

Leica iDR is great.  It’s popular with Canon (Auto Lighting Optimizer), Nikon (Active D-Lighting) , Fuji (DR-P), Pentax (Highlight/Shadow correction) etc.  All have different terms to describe to the feature.

I set it to maximum/high with virtually any brand as long as it doesn’t affect the RAW files.  (Canon HTP affects raw files and you have to be careful with Fuji as well).

It basically boosts the shadows and pulls back your highlights.  In my experience, this is almost what I always do when working with RAW.  I believe that the default JPEG engines typically replicate slide film while these dynamic range optimizers better replicate negative films.

A Bit of History

In the beginning, we just had JPEGs.  With the poor dynamic range of CCD sensors, it was important to capture all of the dynamic range that was possible, which is what led to the push for RAW formats.  Computer processors were fast and flash memory was expensive.

You’d come home with 100 images and be able to process the RAW files to your heart’s content   

Then somewhere along the way, we started shooting 1000’s of images and our CPUs couldn’t keep up with the 47 or 60MP (or 100MP) images.  Both clients and family members now want same-day edits or next-day edits.  This is partly why smartphone photograph has killed mainstream non luxury cameras and why Instax still is popular.

So, both in pro work and in hobbyist work, there is renewed interest in having a camera “getting it right” out of the box.

As sensors have gotten better and algorithms have gotten better, it’s now possible for companies like Leica to apply some basic highlight reduction and shadow boosts across the board.

A good camera, which includes the 4.0 and newer Q2, lets you use JPEGs 70+% of the time with great results and then going into RAW only for your “portfolio” keeper or for something special…

[Qwertynm]

I don't know if this link has been posted somewhere else already. Low light, high ISO capability of the Q3 seem vastly improved compared to the Q2 regarding to this article:

Leica Q3 vs. Q2 low light comparisons - Leica Rumors

Interesting to see that choosing ISO 100 and pushing the shot in post looks better on both cameras compared to choosing the ISO for a correct exposure in camera. I always tend to underexpose to protect highlights with these modern sensors and push shadows in post. Seems to be the right approach instead of getting the exposure "correct" in camera (whatever that means). The approach is definitely not ETTR as it was in my prior cameras. 

Color from the Q3 looks much more pleasing to my eye compared to the Q2 as well. Cooler and less greens, looks more natural. Compared to my Canon R5 the AWB of my Q3 tends to get the colors more accurate as well. I never got on with the AWB of the R5 and usually choose the Kelvin number. Was a bit dumbfounded when I looked trough the menu of the Q3 and saw that you can only select Kelvin numbers in 500K increments?! 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Qwertynm

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I don't know if this link has been posted somewhere else already. Low light, high ISO capability of the Q3 seem vastly improved compared to the Q2 regarding to this article:

Leica Q3 vs. Q2 low light comparisons - Leica Rumors

Interesting to see that choosing ISO 100 and pushing the shot in post looks better on both cameras compared to choosing the ISO for a correct exposure in camera. I always tend to underexpose to protect highlights with these modern sensors and push shadows in post. Seems to be the right approach instead of getting the exposure "correct" in camera (whatever that means). The approach is definitely not ETTR as it was in my prior cameras. 

Color from the Q3 looks much more pleasing to my eye compared to the Q2 as well. Cooler and less greens, looks more natural. Compared to my Canon R5 the AWB of my Q3 tends to get the colors more accurate as well. I never got on with the AWB of the R5 and usually choose the Kelvin number. Was a bit dumbfounded when I looked trough the menu of the Q3 and saw that you can only select Kelvin numbers in 500K increments?! 

Interesting - a pity they didn't post 100% crops. I can see it's improved in the Q3, but it's difficult to tell the noise patterns from these jpgs at 2048 pixels on the long edge. 

[Daniel C.1975]

Hi, 

 

meanwhile I had the chance to get my hands on a Q3. I believe most has been said, but for sure not from everyone  

First the displayed Q3 was with the brass hood and brass thumbrest and the new grip - so all on it. Honestly, taste is something you can't argue about, but the brass stuff on the Q3 is for sure not my cup of tea - I really don't like it. 

So first thing was to strip everything of the camera. The black vented hood looks quite cool, but I prefer the original one, even the vented one is more convinient for filter use. 

Fun fact: The Leica store employee (I was in Vienna on holiday on took the chance) told me that the new grip is Arca-Swiss compatible. I was sorry to tell him that this is not true. So the training for the sales personell is something to work on. Otherwise extremely friendly and nice staff.

 

To the major points: 

- The flippy display: I believe the implementation is not as bad as many claim. Yes you might be able to do it more elegant, but it is very sturdy and for me does not destroy the elegance of the Q-line too much. For me the benefit ways the design impact out by a good mile. The display is crisper and clearer than on the Q2

- New button lay-out on the right side: I might be in the minority, but I actually prefer the new layout to the old one. I have finally everything in thumbs-reach. 

- AF is much better on faces, otherwise I recognized not many differences. 

 

All in all, I liked it very much. 

 

Daniel

 

[AlanD]

8 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

Low light, high ISO capability of the Q3 seem vastly improved compared to the Q2 regarding to this article:

Leica Q3 vs. Q2 low light comparisons - Leica Rumors

Yes, this should be the key strength of the Q3/M11 sensor.  The combination of BSI, low read noise, and “looser” Bayer filter all improve total light hitting the sensor almost a full stop.

Photonstophotos.net is a good look at the RAW performance based upon nominal ISO.  Leica usually doesn’t lie with their ISO so it’s good to compare within the brand.

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!

 

8 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I always tend to underexpose to protect highlights with these modern sensors and push shadows in post. Seems to be the right approach instead of getting the exposure "correct" in camera (whatever that means). The approach is definitely not ETTR as it was in my prior cameras. 
 

Yes.  This has to do with read noise.  There is a penalty of noise when reading data off the sensor whether it is 1/1000 or 1/100 exposure.  ETTR was good to make sure your signal exceeded the read noise.  With modern sensors, read noise is low and so preserving highlights lets you stay at lower ISOs too.

 

 

8 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

Color from the Q3 looks much more pleasing to my eye compared to the Q2 as well. Cooler and less greens, looks more natural. Compared to my Canon R5 the AWB of my Q3 tends to get the colors more accurate as well. 

First, try the hue test to see your color sensitivity (both your monitor and your eyes):

https://www.xrite.com/hue-test

 

The Q3 is less sharp of a Bayer filter (assuming it follows the M11).  The R5 has a really sloppy red filter:

 

which paradoxically gives it the Canon characteristic skin tones.

This somewhat translates to film (cyan layer = red, magenta = green, but not perfectly)

Porta 800 which has great skin tones has the same kind of broad overlap

 

Whereas Ektar 100 film has sharper delineation 

 

I would have loved to have seen a 28mm Q2 for landscapes/street and a 50mm Q3 for street/portraits.

[Qwertynm]

@AlanD thank you for all the graphs and data and the link to this fun test. I don’t think one needs to do a hue test to have a subjective opinion about the color interpretation of a camera in AWB or in general. I don’t dispute the fact that the R5 can produce good and accurate colors just not in AWB in my experience. YMMV of course

[AlanD]

3 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

@AlanD thank you for all the graphs and data and the link to this fun test. I don’t think one needs to do a hue test to have a subjective opinion about the color interpretation of a camera in AWB or in general. I don’t dispute the fact that the R5 can produce good and accurate colors just not in AWB in my experience. YMMV of course

Agree 99%.  The hue test is fun because it helps you identify when the monitor is a weak link.

People LOVE Portra for skin tones and it’s actually different from Ektar and you cannot reproduce it purely in software.  Same is true for monitors.  Many monitors blur the difference between colors where others can show the nuances better.

When talking about better or worse colors, it’s nice to talk about the content you are photographing.  As much as digital lets you carry multiple “film emulations” (as speeds) in a single device, those subtle colors are still really hard to fully translate.

So, when talking about preferring color, it is helpful to put context around light (natural, mix, artificial) and content (still life, street, portraits… and skin tone/color), etc.  No camera is perfect in every situation unfortunately.

Years ago, people tried CYGM color filters and RGB-Emerald filters instead of Bayer.  They each deliver strengths and weaknesses in the end result.   But it does point out that RGB alone isn’t ideal even for color even though it is ideal for “overall” performance.

 

[Qwertynm]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb AlanD:

So, when talking about preferring color, it is helpful to put context around light (natural, mix, artificial) and content (still life, street, portraits… and skin tone/color), etc.  No camera is perfect in every situation unfortunately.

the context was the comparison I linked above where the reviewer was shooting the Q2 and Q3 side by side and adjusted the Kelvin Number in Lightroom to the same value. I don't say I wouldn't like the Q2 if I had one. For regular people I guesss it's rare to do a side by side comparison because why would you? You just learn to work the camera and get to know it's strengths and weaknesses. And in my opinion one of the R5s weaknesses is it's AWB in certain situations. That's why I'm shooting manual WB and not in AWB on this particular camera. Comparing AWB of the R5 to the Q3, that I've had for only a brief period, my anecdotal experience was that the Q3s AWB works better or more accurate to my eyes than the one on the R5.

I don't think the conversation about preferences leads to anything fruitful. I wasn't claiming the Q3 colors are more accurate just that I liked them better in this particular comparison. Maybe that message wasn't clear enough (language barrier?). They are all fine cameras and I'm happy with my new lilttle toy next to the "workhorse" camera 🙂

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Qwertynm]

Another observation I can share is that the Q3s USB-C port is a slower connection to download files than the wireless connection. The Q3 also comes with a braided USB-C to Apple Lightning cable, which is another bummer as this port will (hopefully) become obsolete this autumn with the iPhone 15. Lightning is USB 2.0 and thus much slower than what USB-C 3.1 would allow. People using Android phones have been on USB-C for years so the provided cable by Leica is obsolete anyway (Are they assuming everyone is using an iPhone?!).

Seems like the port on the Q3, altough USB-C, only supports slower speeds, which is unfortunate as I would have prefered to leave a grip on permanently and charge the camera trough the USB-C port and download files trough it as well.  I guess I need to figure out how to download files wirelessly onto my PC without diverting trough a mobile device. Weird choice by Leica there but I guess the future is wireless?

Edited June 7, 2023 by Qwertynm
formatting

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

(Are they assuming everyone is using an iPhone?!).

They are not assuming. Leica can see how many people downloaded the Fotos app on both iOS and Android platforms, and make an informed decision based on that. I agree that including a Lightning cable is a bit shortsighted, but they can always replace the cable in a year or two.