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

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, gotium said:

...  for my uses the Q lens is really good - even if optically limited. 

What exactly do you mean by "really good" if you're agreeing it's optically limited?

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not an optical engineer, so I don't know what they can do, but I bet it is entirely possible. The Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx are APS cameras, but their lenses are a lot better than the one in the Q in terms of edge to edge sharpness. They are also stabilized and a very small fraction of the size of the Q, both lenses and bodies. Even at double they size, they are still smaller than the Q. They also cost a small fraction of the Q. I realize that Leica's premium is massive, but I fully believe it is within Leica's capabilities to make a Q with a sharper lens at equal or smaller size, especially given nearly 9 or 10 years since the lens was developed. I also think whether or not it is reliant on SDC is irrelevant as long as they can keep it sharp from edge to edge.

It can be done but I shudder at the size and weight on a Q type body…

Exactly like M lenses. They can never compete with SL lenses because of the size restrictions. 

[Advertisement]

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

[goodbokeh]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

It shows that Q2M, with its lens, can provide more detail than GFX100 with 45mm. Yes, a big part is the lack of a CFA filter, but the lens must be good enough for the whole system to provide the demonstrated performance. BTW, Q2M puts stronger requirements on the lens than Q3.

The test is to compare Monochrom vs Bayer aliasing only. So ultimate lens resolution is not the point of this test, it's the SENSORS. When Jim says there is a need to increase the 100S resolution to 200 MP, it is to overcome the Bayer aliasing weaknesses. Besides all that, this test was only measuring the very center of the two lenses. The weakness of the 28/1.7 is not in the center but off-center in the field areas. So this is still apples and oranges.

[gotium]

48 minutes ago, Sohail said:

What exactly do you mean by "really good" if you're agreeing it's optically limited?

Nice and sharp on-axis and pleasing bokeh, good color correction, nice transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, and also my favorite focal length

[Sohail]

30 minutes ago, gotium said:

Nice and sharp on-axis and pleasing bokeh, good color correction, nice transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, and also my favorite focal length

I question whether in its Q3 iteration, it's worth the candle anymore. 

[SrMi]

26 minutes ago, Sohail said:

I question whether in its Q3 iteration, it's worth the candle anymore. 

If it is good enough for Q2M, which puts more stress on lens resolution than Q3, it should be good enough for Q3 (note: I own Q2 and Q2M, but not Q3).

[fededuran]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not an optical engineer, so I don't know what they can do, but I bet it is entirely possible. The Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx are APS cameras, but their lenses are a lot better than the one in the Q in terms of edge to edge sharpness. They are also stabilized and a very small fraction of the size of the Q, both lenses and bodies. Even at double they size, they are still smaller than the Q. They also cost a small fraction of the Q. I realize that Leica's premium is massive, but I fully believe it is within Leica's capabilities to make a Q with a sharper lens at equal or smaller size, especially given nearly 9 or 10 years since the lens was developed. I also think whether or not it is reliant on SDC is irrelevant as long as they can keep it sharp from edge to edge.

The Ricoh gr3x is stunning. Some of my best pictures ever have been taken with that camera. 

[beewee]

I have the SL2-S + 28 APO and the Q3. They have different rendering when shot at large apertures. Q3 has more of an modern M ASPH lens bokeh while the 28 APO has the same look as every other SL APO lens.

It really depends on what you’re shooting and your subject matter as to whether you’ll really see the difference. The Q3 lens is very good, even at 60 MP when stopped down to f/5.6-f/8. The 28 APO will out resolve the SL2’s sensor and holds up even at 100MP on the SL2-S multi-shot mode unless you’re diffraction limited.

But if you’re shooting landscapes at f/5.6 or f/8, the two will look pretty much identical but the Q3 would be way lighter to carry around. In fact, that’s one of the biggest reason I got the Q3. The weight difference may not seem like a lot but every gram counts when you’re hiking/scrambling 20-30km with 1500+m of elevation gain, or if you’re carrying a ton of climbing gear on a long approach and you’re limited in both weight and volume. Some may read this and say it’s cheaper to find weight savings elsewhere but when you’ve already maxed out your weight savings with ultralight gear, then the camera is the only item left that will make a significant difference in weight savings.

Edited July 7, 2023 by beewee

[beewee]

14 hours ago, Photoworks said:

Why not have both?

In the end, the Q lens is much wider than 28.

Yeah, the Q lens is more like a 26mm.

 

14 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Perhaps the true ideal would be an L mount Q, released along with one or two compact primes to supplement the SL system.

I don’t think I’d actually want this unless I’m using small lenses like the Sigma 24/3.5. SL lenses are too big and will not balance well. Even the lens on the Q3 feels a bit on the large/heavy side for the body in my opinion whereas the SL 16-35 SVE and SL APO primes feel well balanced on the SL2-S.

For any bigger lens on the Q body, I’d want a handgrip and thumb grip. Once you start loading the Q up with accessories like handgrips, thumb grips, etc… then it’s going to feel more like an SL body. Whereas the appeal of the Q3 for me is that I have most of the features (AF, face tracking, etc…) of an SL body but everything is in the size of an M body, albeit with a big M lens similar in size to a 35 Lux.

[Virob]

If it was me, and 28mm was my favourite focal length, I would definitely get the 28APO. But, I’d also have a hard time giving up the Q2. I would make the justification that it is my favourite focal length and the 2 serve very different purposes. 
Thankfully I don’t have to make that decision. 😁

[Sohail]

8 hours ago, SrMi said:

If it is good enough for Q2M, which puts more stress on lens resolution than Q3, it should be good enough for Q3 (note: I own Q2 and Q2M, but not Q3).

The question in this thread is not whether the Q is "good enough" to cope with a 60MP sensor. It's whether it's "good enough" compared to the 28 APO SL on the SL2.

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, Sohail said:

The question in this thread is not whether the Q is "good enough" to cope with a 60MP sensor. It's whether it's "good enough" compared to the 28 APO SL on the SL2.

You are correct.

One answer to that question was given in post #28.

[Sohail]

9 minutes ago, SrMi said:

You are correct.

One answer to that question was given in post #28.

Objectively speaking, it comes down to weight and form factor. Agreed. Subjectively speaking and @gotium makes similar points too, that it comes down to how the lens renders (colour, bokeh, nice transition from in-focus to out-of-focus). Some images of course would help. Would love to see some @beewee if you could share. 

[hoolyproductions]

TLDR: I agree with post 28 (and yours above OP)

I've had an SL2-S since 2021 and it's my main camera. I absolutely love it. I use it with 50mm and 75mm APO-SL for dimly lit music photography and with 24-90 for 'daytime' use: candids, landscapes, music events in day time or with professional lighting.

Early in 2022 it had a very nasty fall and had to go to the Wetzlar hospital, so I decided to get an SL2 as back up and to be able to try out the higher megapixels. Like some others, I found prefer the SL2-S also for daylight stuff, it seems to have more headroom in the highlights, but I did really appreciate the extra MP that allowed me to take telephoto landscapes with the 24-90 and in general do some heavy cropping when needed.

So I sold the SL2 for a Q2 in summer 2022. For some the extra weight and bulk might not be very significant. I certainly agree that when using the SL2-S 'in the field' I find the size and weight to be just perfect, also with the 24-90. But when I go e.g. on a short weekend trip, a hike, or just a long walk around the city the SL2/S is often just too much for me. Usually I have an extra layer of clothes, some food/drink, often a small pair of binoculars and the extra bulk of the SL2/S just makes things unpleasant/awkward. I just came back from a two week holiday with the Q2 and got some wonderful shots, including some pretty nice landscapes and candids at 75mm, excellent for social media and as souvenirs, if not at the level of quality I would get with the SL2/S. 

One more consideration for me is the interface. Whilst Q2 is brilliantly designed and a joy to use, it is missing some features like back button focus, and I miss possibility to have 4 different display modes at the touch of a Fn button (histogram, peaking, horizon, blank screen). Q2 only has two display modes and I have to dive into the menu if I want a horizon line (or have it on in one of the modes, which I find distracting). The ergonomics/haptics of the SL2/S give more flexibility whilst still being very elegantly implemented.

[AZach]

For some time had both 28mm and 35mm APO-SC SL lenses alternatively paired with the 90mm. After a while found that ratio 28/35 was 15/85 so I “ditched” the 28 and traded it to a nice 2nd-hand Q2. And “as a travel camera or day to day carry, it is clearly working very well” but do not think that a Q3 would make any difference for me. Waiting for the 21mm APO-SC SL to appear but until further a Sigma 20mm/2.0 fills that gap quite nicely.  

[Sohail]

I visited the Leica Store in Milan today and took a couple of shots with the 28 SL APO on the SL2. Nothing scientific. The bokeh looks gorgeous. A sample:

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!

Might return tomorrow and try it out alongside the Q2/3.
 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Sohail

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have both the Q2 and 28 APO SL, with a Q3 on the way, for my spouse.

1. There is no doubt the SL28 APO is the more *perfect* lens. I used the Q2 as my SL 28mm solution but easily succumbed when after comparing it to the APO once available. You don’t need to stop down the SL APO except for DoF. I REALLY love that it nearly perfectly matches my SL APO50 and 90 in colour and rendering. Possibly the best set of matched primes ever made. But it can also be a bit *clinical* in it’s rendering. Often beauty is in the flaws. So…….

2. That doesn’t make the Q lens lesser. Just different. Many prefer the M50 Summilux over the M APO. Lenses aren’t all about optical performance. There’s the way they draw and handle to take into account. Lenses should have balanced performance, not necessarily optical perfection. The SL90 APO isn’t my favourite lens for portraits.

3. Sure Leica can build a smaller 28mm APO SL. They do with the APO M 35 and 50. But those are DOUBLE the price of the SL versions while performance is the same. Are you prepared to double the price of the Q4 to get M APO performance in a Q? Maybe more to get a leaf shutter, OIS and a macro function? Also the SL APO’s are a matched set. To some, including me this matters for usability and system building. And the video guys, of course.

4. The Q2 lens has been measured at 26.7mm on Fred Miranda. So actually only a bit wider than the stated 28mm. Less deviation then the 50 Summilux M has from being an actual 50mm, just for the record. And before you go off on a tangent about how the optics are MUCH wider so the lens should be a 23.5mm that’s not how it works. The Canon 17mm TSE also has a much bigger image circle than 17mm. So does the SIgma 85mm ART and about a hundred other common lenses I can name.

5. The Ricoh is an APSC camera. No an issue for me. I like APSC cameras. But it’s generally easier to make a decent lens for a smaller sensor. You want better than the Q. Get a CL and put a TL 35 Summilux on the front. About the same as the SL50 APO. And if you think the Ricoh is better. Shoot that and stop whinging about the Q2/3.

6. A camera of lens in isolation is pointless. There’s a bunch of whining going on about SL2 weight etc here ATM. The shutter sound on an M11. Now the Q3 lens IQ. Cameras are both body and lens. Handling, size, weight, balance, cost, user interface are all there but all we talk about is sensors and making more perfect (and boring??) lenses. The Q is super popular because of the combination of body and lens and handling and functionality etc. It’s also WAY more successful than the SL or 28 SL APO. That says that the Q has done a better job than the SL or SL 28 APO.

If you want SL APO performance in a Q you’d need to be ready for the price, different handling and the really limited delivery due to making that lens. But hey, have at it.

Gordon

[LBJ2]

3 hours ago, Sohail said:

I visited the Leica Store in Milan today and took a couple of shots with the 28 SL APO on the SL2. Nothing scientific. The bokeh looks gorgeous. A sample:
Might return tomorrow and try it out alongside the Q2/3.
 

Do it. DO it. DO IT...the 28 SL APO that is...😉😎

[Life By Stills]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:03 AM, Sohail said:

it means inferior optical performance with the Q. The 1.7 Summilux lens was already struggling on the Q2's 47MP sensor. On the Q3, images are really soft (with exception of the centre) and undergo a lot of in-camera processing.

First question I have @Sohail - is this an actual real world /real use problem for you, or just because you're pixel peeping? If it's not a real world / real use problem, then why not just stick with the smaller more convenient form and weight factor? If it's just because you're pixel peeping and for real world / real use it makes no difference, then to me, on a practical level, it probably does not make sense to switch to the SL2.

I think this is probably more a question about what you are after from your real world / real use vs pixel peeping. Only you can really answer that one.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[beewee]

18 hours ago, Sohail said:

Objectively speaking, it comes down to weight and form factor. Agreed. Subjectively speaking and @gotium makes similar points too, that it comes down to how the lens renders (colour, bokeh, nice transition from in-focus to out-of-focus). Some images of course would help. Would love to see some @beewee if you could share. 

I don’t have many samples from the Q3 and SL2-S + 28 APO SL but here are a couple:
 

Q3:

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!

Stitched Pano from Q3:

SL2-S + 28 APO SL:

SL2-S + 28 APO SL:

SL2-S + 28 APO SL

Edited July 8, 2023 by beewee