Is it time to ditch the Q2/3 and fully embrace the SL2?

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having an SL2-S with 28 APO and a bunch of native L-mount lenses from Sigma and Leica, if my aim is to shoot landscape in the mountains with large DoF on a wide angle lens, I don’t feel like I’m giving up much by shooting with the Q3 except the extra ~800g that I have to carry up a mountain.

Pretty sure if you haven’t seen these photos below before on this forum, you wouldn’t know which one was taken with the Q3 and which one was taken with the SL2-S + 28 APO.

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!

Edited July 15, 2023 by beewee

[Advertisement]

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

[Sohail]

1 hour ago, beewee said:

Having an SL2-S with 28 APO and a bunch of native L-mount lenses from Sigma and Leica, if my aim is to shoot landscape in the mountains with large DoF on a wide angle lens, I don’t feel like I’m giving up much by shooting with the Q3 except the extra ~800g that I have to carry up a mountain.

Pretty sure if you haven’t seen these photos below before on this forum, you wouldn’t know which one was taken with the Q3 and which one was taken with the SL2-S + 28 APO.

You could probably throw in an iPhone picture too and make the same argument, and if you really want to extend this argument you could probably do it with AI with no weight. 

[helged]

Regarding Q: Irrespective of the views and discussions in this thread, it is excellent, and a benefit to us all, that the Q-line has been such a succes for Leica. Similarly with the M-monochrome line (Q Monochrome as well, I imagine).

[beewee]

10 hours ago, Sohail said:

You could probably throw in an iPhone picture too and make the same argument, and if you really want to extend this argument you could probably do it with AI with no weight. 

I’ve done comparisons with the 14 Pro shot with ProRAW and no, it’s not the same. The dynamic range and color is not comparable.

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, beewee said:

I’ve done comparisons with the 14 Pro shot with ProRAW and no, it’s not the same. The dynamic range and color is not comparable.

All wasted on a screen, which was the point, let alone determining what your screen looks like versus another’s.  Prints tell the story, but even then the user (shooter, editor, printer and display person) remains the key variable, same as in darkroom days.

Jeff

[beewee]

Same user, same display (for anyone looking). I think many people can tell which image is better without needing a print.

And this is after putting in way more effort than I would normally do for any photo I edit to give the iPhone 14 Pro the best chance possible to make the image work. The Q3 image took 5 seconds to edit in LR. The iPhone 14 Pro (shot with ProRAW) took 10+ minutes to edit in LR, going way beyond slider adjustments and fine tuning a custom tone curve for the image to make it look half decent in the highlights (and it still apparent it’s not great). You can get rid of the green flare dot (I’ve left it for posterity) but you can’t bring back what isn’t there (dynamic range).

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!

 

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, beewee said:

I’ve done comparisons with the 14 Pro shot with ProRAW and no, it’s not the same. The dynamic range and color is not comparable.

No, I mean if you're viewing your pictures on a iPhone or laptop. If you want to compare, you need to print large of course.

[Jeff S]

36 minutes ago, beewee said:

Same user, same display (for anyone looking). I think many people can tell which image is better without needing a print.

And this is after putting in way more effort than I would normally do for any photo I edit to give the iPhone 14 Pro the best chance possible to make the image work. The Q3 image took 5 seconds to edit in LR. The iPhone 14 Pro (shot with ProRAW) took 10+ minutes to edit in LR, going way beyond slider adjustments and fine tuning a custom tone curve for the image to make it look half decent in the highlights (and it still apparent it’s not great). You can get rid of the green flare dot (I’ve left it for posterity) but you can’t bring back what isn’t there (dynamic range).

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!

 

Meaningless, for me, on my phone screen.

Jeff

[Sohail]

Yes, if you only intend to view images on a screen a Q is an overkill.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Sohail

[Stuart Richardson]

I think the second image is quite a bit more natural and nicer (particularly the light). That said, on a screen the differences are flattened. This is often an argument that comes up...that all lenses are good enough, and it does not matter if you use a 500 dollar Sigma lens or a 5000 dollar Leica lens. The real answer is that it very often does not matter, but sometimes it very much does. Depending on your photography and how you work, you need to make the decision about what is important for you. Personally I prefer to use the apo summicrons because I do make large art prints on occasion when the need arises. Like nearly all photographers, the vast majority of images I take are not keepers, and it is easy to say, "what do you really need this lens for when you only print 1% of your pictures?". My own answer would be that when I DO decide to print something, I have an exceptionally sharp and clean file to work with and that elevates my work by removing veils from the scene I am trying to present. I don't want viewers distracted (even subconsciously) by technical deficiencies in my prints, I want them thinking about the images. Right now I am preparing for an exhibition that I have in January where I have to fill an entire photography museum, which will require at least 40 or 50 large prints (80x100cm and a few wall sized prints in a triptych). Much of the work was done on film, but I am very happy that I have the digital shot on S lenses and SL APO Summicrons for the rest. If for no other reason than that the images are much easier and more satisfying to edit.

[Jeff S]

Even if one can see differences on their own screen, preferably one that is highly rated, large and well calibrated, there is no way of controlling how others view/see the pic. And that’s apart from deficiencies resulting from the forum software.

When I make and light/display a print, viewers see what I want them to see (apart from differences in human vision, of course, which also can apply to screen viewing). And they have no idea, nor do they care about (other than maybe forum junkies) the myriad variables determining how the pic was shot, edited and printed.

Jeff

Edited July 15, 2023 by Jeff S

[beewee]

I’d argue that there’s less demand for critical sharpness for prints than on a high quality screen like the one on an iPad Pro or MacBook Pro. I can easily get away with a 75-150 DPI image, up-ressed by 2-4x and get a very decent looking print with proper output sharpening. Doing something similar is just not going to show well on an iPad Pro with a 250 PPI display if you look a properly rendered image.

Unfortunately, this forum is terrible for compressing photos which is sad considering the whole forum is geared towards people that prize image quality. But that’s not a problem with viewing high quality images on a screen in general, that’s a l-camera-forum problem.

Also, for anyone that actually use an Apple device from the past few years (and there are over a billion Apple devices in use), the screens are actually very well calibrated out of the box. In fact, each iPhone 14 Pro is individually calibrated before leaving the factory. It’s something that most people don’t realize unless they start critically testing the colour accuracy of Apple devices. There are plenty of lab results that show this. Also, go to any store that sell Apple devices and you’ll see that all the screens on Apple devices look the same because they’re all calibrated.

Edited July 15, 2023 by beewee

[Jeff S]

I won’t even begin to list all the reasons I disagree with the above. Discerning editors and printers know why. Anyway, this is not the forum section for that discussion. 

Unfortunately printing is a tiny niche these days, and was never easy in darkroom days even when it was a more common practice.

Only Eizo or NEC monitor for me.  iPhone for critical editing/viewing or printing? No thanks. But to each his/her own.

Jeff

Edited July 15, 2023 by Jeff S

[Sohail]

Sold my Q2. Got a good deal for a used SL28. Been taking it everywhere. 

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!

[hdmesa]

On 7/14/2023 at 8:42 AM, SrMi said:

I do not believe that OIS negatively impacts optical performance any more than IBIS.

I always experienced better results with OIS on when shooting handheld with the Q2. OIS being an issue with the Q is something that happened early on with the original Q and has been repeated as truth ever since.

 

On 7/14/2023 at 9:32 AM, panoreserve said:

According to various product managers at LEICA in Wetzlar (SL system; optics department), OIS has a slight negative impact on imaging performance (approx. 10%), especially with wide-angle lenses. This is another reason why the Vario SL 16/35 is so excellent - it does without optical image stabilization... - Whether this is only of theoretical importance or also has practical, noticeable relevance, I cannot answer clearly. However, I would have welcomed the implementation of IBIS instead of OIS in the Q3 (cf. Ricoh's current GR models, which work with IBIS despite their tiny size - I know it's "only" APSC, but it's still remarkable). ..

The original Q firmware had an issue whereby OIS could make images softer than they should be. This was fixed in firmware at some point IIRC.

Regarding "approx 10%", I mean sure, we all know shooting handheld with OIS is not as good as turning it off and using a tripod. I highly doubt that "10%" was comparing OIS on handheld versus OIS off handheld, as the results would be inverted in favor of OIS. 

[John Smith]

On 7/16/2023 at 10:45 AM, Sohail said:

Sold my Q2. Got a good deal for a used SL28. Been taking it everywhere. 

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!

I bought a Q2M, thinking that it'd be a good companion with the SL2. It just didn't work for me. I have a 28SL and love it. But the other day I happened to look on the Leica USA site and saw that a 35APO was available. I snagged it. It doesn't replace the 35SL or the 28SL, but fills in a niche for a small, APO-quality lens for the SL. The kit isn't as light as the Q, but it is great in the hand. 

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, John Smith said:

I bought a Q2M, thinking that it'd be a good companion with the SL2. It just didn't work for me. I have a 28SL and love it. But the other day I happened to look on the Leica USA site and saw that a 35APO was available. I snagged it. It doesn't replace the 35SL or the 28SL, but fills in a niche for a small, APO-quality lens for the SL. The kit isn't as light as the Q, but it is great in the hand. 

Test your 35 APO M when you get it for decentering (f/2 at infinity). My copy was decentered, and others have reported the same. It's a really hard lens for Leica to assemble perfectly. Their acceptable tolerances for centering must be ~f/8 since some of us were told our decentered copies were within spec.

[jplomley]

3 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Test your 35 APO M when you get it for decentering (f/2 at infinity). My copy was decentered, and others have reported the same. It's a really hard lens for Leica to assemble perfectly. Their acceptable tolerances for centering must be ~f/8 since some of us were told our decentered copies were within spec.

What's the procedure for determining decentering? 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hdmesa]

2 minutes ago, jplomley said:

What's the procedure for determining decentering? 

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/how-to-check-how-decentered-your-lens-is/

Maybe it's better to not know, though

 

[John Smith]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Test your 35 APO M when you get it for decentering (f/2 at infinity). My copy was decentered, and others have reported the same. It's a really hard lens for Leica to assemble perfectly. Their acceptable tolerances for centering must be ~f/8 since some of us were told our decentered copies were within spec.

 

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Test your 35 APO M when you get it for decentering (f/2 at infinity). My copy was decentered, and others have reported the same. It's a really hard lens for Leica to assemble perfectly. Their acceptable tolerances for centering must be ~f/8 since some of us were told our decentered copies were within spec.

Thanks for the tip. I’ll do that.