Q3 - 36MP or 60MP?

[mholeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear Q3 users,

Which sensor resolution do you shoot in and why? I have been shooting at 36MP because reviews says it has better DR and I don’t usually need to crop in too much, never crop in more than 50mm when using the camera. Interested to know what others do, also interested to know if 36MP has better low light performance compared to 60MP? I use max iso 12600.

[Advertisement]

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

[LarsOtium]

As often repeated by the guys at Leica Miami, you are paying for 60 mp you might as well use them.

 

Additionally, all tests I’ve read suggest there is no real world benefit on the noise front.

 

To me, the only reason is if, for whatever reason, I want a smaller file. 

[SrMi]

I have not seen any better noise performance in lower resolution in all my tests.

The lower-resolution DNGs are created from the full 60MP image. Reducing the resolution of an image has never improved noise unless looking at 100%. There is no magic involved when resizing an image.

Using 36MP will reduce storage on your disk and your SD card.

 

 

[clasami]

Have read and heard different things. Currently using DNG Large, but most likely will try DNG medium to reduce file size - unless I know that I will be cropping to 75 or 90.

[Qwertynm]

To me there is no real benefit in shooting 36MP. HDDs and SSDs have become so cheap that the storage argument is invalid imho. Most people spend more on accessories, filters, bags than what an 8TB SSD costs today.
 

The increase in DR has been debunked since the claim was initially made with the release of the M11.

 

what I do is after import, culling, editing and exporting is I throw the dngs on the external RAID1 storage and upload a 3000x2000 jpg to the cloud. That file is 1-2MB in size and if I need it larger I always have it on the external HDDs at home. There are even options to compress dngs to save ~50% of the original file size. SD cards are cheap too so I don’t bother with anything but large dngs

[Voxen]

When I have my Q3 I’ll shoot 60mp for street photography because this is where I have the most need for big crops, and also for travel photography for the same reason.

Now for landscape and portraits, I’ll probably switch to 36mp which is plenty enough even for small cropping. I see no reason to carry huge 60mp files in that case. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Voxen

[mholeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really interesting replies and useful to know your insights. I also transfer my files (JPEG + DNG) to my NAS drive at home so file size after culling is not much of an issue. I think I’m going to give 60MP a go. 

[Pierre69]

I shoot 60MP and use a lot 35, 50, 75 and 90 crops. I ony shoot jpeg, no storage problem in jpeg. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Pierre69

[01af]

Unless the sheer size of 60-MP files is a serious problem for you, your memory card, or your computer's hard disk, there's no reason to dumb down to 36 MP (or 18 MP). In particular, there's no gain in terms of dynamic or exposure range.

[MikeD70]

I always use the full 60, but then, I tend to crop to the extreme in post, if I see something I really like in there.

[nicci78]

Red dot forum mantra says it all : you paid for 60MP just use 60MP. They did not found any advantages into binning. 
Using 36MP is like throwing money. Just look at Sony A7C II & A7CR or SL2 and SL2-S price differences. A hypothetical 33MP Q3-S could be 1000€ cheaper. 

[Daniel C.1975]

Hi, 

 

in the end the result will depend on the final size of the displayed image. 

Both (36 and 60) is for most print sizes plenty. However, if you want to keep the freedom to crop, you are throwing a bit of freedom to do so away, if you just use 36mp. 

 

This being said, I have also made a very brief test of 36 vs. 60mp at high iso (6400). The 36mp pictures shows at 100% magnification less noise, but also slightly less detail. After resizing the 60mp picture to 36mp and than comparing at 100% magnification, there is literally no difference between the two pictures. My test set-up was not suitable to recognize mini-differences in dynamic but to my eyes, the quality at high-iso was the same at comparable magnification.

So, beside the size- and processing-wins, I see no gain in using the 36mp. Still, I might use them for certain occasions - horses for courses. 

But 95%+ of the time I might stick to the red-dot-forum mantra, plus I love to use the crop capabilities. 

 

Another good message: Comparing the output of the SL2s at high-iso with a to 24mp resized Q3 picture, also shows no real-world-relevant differences. On a very critical view, the SL2s might have a very slight advantage, but not in every aspect. For me the high-iso performance of the Q3 is very, very good. 

On low-Iso, it does of course have a big advantage in resolution. 

 

Another nice thing I realized yesterday when I have used the SL2s with the 24-90 plus the Q3 on a family-happening, is that the output of both cameras in regard of colours and overall image impression is very comparable. Which makes post-processing a much easier task, and the pictures have a common look like being from one source. 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[Daniel C.1975]

Just in case someone is interested in some Q2 vs. Q3 stuff at high Iso. I didn't wanted to open a new threat, but I believe this fits quite ok here. 

I will for sure write some first Q3 impression compared to the Q2, but it's way to early. 

For now I've just taken a picture in bad light with both cameras at 1/60s; f1.7 Iso6400. Afterwards I've pushed the pictures by 1 EV, exported them to 24mp, and compared these pictures in Lightroom. For me this a quite practical approach to not overestimate the noise impact and compare the images at the same output magnification. 

Interesting is the very different WB, and me not being able to cope them easily. In this case the Q2 was the warmer and wronger camera. Also Auto-WB in Lightroom came to total different results for both cameras. Super orange-like picture (q2) vs. a green-tinted one (Q3). So I stuck to the in-camera WB and made very minuscule change towards cold on the Q2. 

What you see here are screen-shots from 100% crops of the to 24mp resized pictures, and yes, it seems there is a very slight focus difference, which is my fault. 

Not a scientific test, just a simple comparison, purely of the noise behavior. I was good with the Q2, but the Q3 is the better camera in these regards - no surprise. 

Left is Q2, right is Q3. Both crops are from towards the frame edges / corners. 

 

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 September 12, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[jwhitehead]

It seems many of the responses are viewing this question purely from a storage perspective. I'm not sure how many have seen the analysis done by mathphotographer, but according to him 36MP is the sweet spot. I don't have the camera yet, so I can't comment on how I'll handle it. 

 

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, jwhitehead said:

It seems many of the responses are viewing this question purely from a storage perspective. I'm not sure how many have seen the analysis done by mathphotographer, but according to him 36MP is the sweet spot. I don't have the camera yet, so I can't comment on how I'll handle it. 

 

Most Q3 owners seem to disagree with that suggestion. It is unclear to me why he came to that suggestion as I did not have patience to watch the whole video (I tried but gave up). Some wrote that he claims less noise at 36MP. That has been debunked unless you view at 100%.

Generally, it can be said that the more pixels the better the IQ (all else equal).

[Carrot]

I don't have the Q3, I currently have the Q2 and SL2-S.  I can understand how the Q2/3 digital zoom works, I think it's similar to the way the Fuji X100 incorporates a digital zoom.  But I'm struggling to understand how the Q3 allows you to take DNG photos at lower mp (18 and 36 I think) whilst remaining at 28mm.  I just don't understand the mechanics of this ... if the sensor is being cropped, thens surely the focal length changes, or is the camera still using the full sensor but ignoring some of the pixels in some way.  Can someone explain this to me?

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Carrot:

I don't have the Q3, I currently have the Q2 and SL2-S.  I can understand how the Q2/3 digital zoom works, I think it's similar to the way the Fuji X100 incorporates a digital zoom.  But I'm struggling to understand how the Q3 allows you to take DNG photos at lower mp (18 and 36 I think) whilst remaining at 28mm.  I just don't understand the mechanics of this ... if the sensor is being cropped, thens surely the focal length changes, or is the camera still using the full sensor but ignoring some of the pixels in some way.  Can someone explain this to me?

Hi,

 

sure, first there is no cropping going on, hence the 28mm at lower resolution. 
When using 36 or 18mp with the Q3, the camera is applying a so called pixel-binning. You can imagine this as just combining a bunch of single pixels and using / processing them as if the covered area would be one pixel. Of course, due to the bayer colour array, this sounds simpler than it is.

But basically that’s what is happening. 
 

The digital-zoom of the Q3 on the opposite is in fact just a crop of the picture which goes hand in hand with a reduced resolution and different impression for depth of field. E.g. the f1.7 28mm with 60mp behaves like a f2.05 35mm with 39mp. Of course shutter speed etc. is of an f1.7, what it still is. I am just talking about the comparable image output. If you are stopping down for greater depth of field, this comparision is more or less irrelevant. 
Great thing to note: If you shoot in RAW, you don’t lose the original 28mm frame. Lightroom is just already applying the crop, but with the cropping tool (press R) you can change the crop-position or framesize etc. - which is a really great implementation in my opinion. 
 

I use without any hesitation the crop up to 50mm which is still nearly 20mp of reaolution and 75mm is also well usable. 
 

I am currently in Tuscany and the flexibility, size and IQ of the Q3 is just a pleasure. So was the Q2 btw, but the Q3 is giving a bit extra 😉

Another one: I also have the SL2s and the colour science and output is nearer to the Q3 than to the Q2.

written on my phone, sorry for funny sentences or spelling, I have large hands 😉

Edited September 22, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[Carrot]

Thanks for explaining that.

On the optical zoom point, I use Capture One and I'm not sure that has the functionality Lightroom has to retain the whole 28mm RAW image.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb Carrot:

Thanks for explaining that.

On the optical zoom point, I use Capture One and I'm not sure that has the functionality Lightroom has to retain the whole 28mm RAW image.

To my knowledge it does. But you have the Q2, which has the same ‘zoom’-function as the Q3, just missing the 90mm crop. So, you can just test it. 
 

[M11 for me]

Am 10.9.2023 um 09:05 schrieb clasami:

Have read and heard different things. Currently using DNG Large, but most likely will try DNG medium to reduce file size - unless I know that I will be cropping to 75 or 90.

To me its rather difficult to judge beforehand if I want to crop an image in post. I made some experiments with smaller DNGs but decided not to go that path any longer.