radialMelt Posted February 20 Share #1 Posted February 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) And if so, is there anything about the Q2M you miss? Not so interested in comments regarding the mindset of shooting B&W as I can get that in film. Mostly I am concerned about image quality, speed of operation, and low light performance. Curious to hear from folks who have made the jump. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20 Posted February 20 Hi radialMelt, Take a look here Anyone move from the Q2M to the Q3?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
PaulJohn Posted February 20 Share #2 Posted February 20 I moved from Q2M to Q3 and have no regrets. I do miss the Q2M but when I look at the Q3 B&W conversions I am very satisfied. The main thing I loved about the Q2M was the tonality straight out of camera. The Q3 seems to offer the same tonality at least at ISO's up to 6400. Above 6400 still looks good but maybe not so much if you crop heavily. I have not done any side by side testing and there was a gap between the move but I do have the Q2M files. I definitely don't miss using filters. Filters negate the high ISO benefit of the Q2M. If I ever get a Q3M I won't bother with filters. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 20 Author Share #3 Posted February 20 15 minutes ago, PaulJohn said: I moved from Q2M to Q3 and have no regrets. I do miss the Q2M but when I look at the Q3 B&W conversions I am very satisfied. The main thing I loved about the Q2M was the tonality straight out of camera. The Q3 seems to offer the same tonality at least at ISO's up to 6400. Above 6400 still looks good but maybe not so much if you crop heavily. I have not done any side by side testing and there was a gap between the move but I do have the Q2M files. I definitely don't miss using filters. Filters negate the high ISO benefit of the Q2M. If I ever get a Q3M I won't bother with filters. Thanks a lot for the report-- very helpful! Did you notice any differences in terms of operating speed, e.g., start up time, wake up time, buffer, etc? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltz Posted February 21 Share #4 Posted February 21 I have not made the move, but if you own the Q2M, do you think it would make more sense to wait for the Q3M? It is a known thing that the Q2M is better at high iso than the Q3, you might miss that if you shoot a lot in low light. But the difference isn’t as much as it was between the Q2 and Q2M 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsyboy Posted February 21 Share #5 Posted February 21 1 hour ago, Miltz said: I have not made the move, but if you own the Q2M, do you think it would make more sense to wait for the Q3M? It is a known thing that the Q2M is better at high iso than the Q3, you might miss that if you shoot a lot in low light. But the difference isn’t as much as it was between the Q2 and Q2M Q2M vs Q3 ISO - Better how? and do we know why? (Just asking out of interest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltz Posted February 21 Share #6 Posted February 21 30 minutes ago, Wellsyboy said: Q2M vs Q3 ISO - Better how? and do we know why? (Just asking out of interest. The Q2M high iso files look amazing. Yes we do now why. More light hits the monochrome sensor because it doesn’t have the color array. It only captures luminance not color. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 21 Author Share #7 Posted February 21 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for the input folks. However, let's allow people who have made the upgrade from the Q2M to Q3 to share their use cases, please. I'd like to avoid speculation or plain old specs comparisons. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Miller Posted February 21 Share #8 Posted February 21 I had a Q2M and loved it primarily due to the incredible low light performance. The files were gorgeous but even though I enjoy shooting in B&W, I can't say that I fully appreciate the subtle differences between a B&W image converted from a color file and the files from a monochrome camera like the Q2M. When the Q3 was announced, I knew I'd take a low light noise hit compared to the Q2M but also figured the Q3 would be at least a half stop better in low light than the Q2 I had previously owned. My assumptions were correct. Nothing will perform as well in low light as the Q2M which I would shoot at 25600, if needed in very low light scenes. However, the Q3 is good enough for me in that regard...I won't hesitate to go up to ISO 8000-10000, and if I was converting to B&W, would go to 16000. That said, the biggest reason for me switching to the Q3 was the increased resolution which allows for more cropping (I LOVE being able to use the Q3 as my 28/35/50 camera) and the flippy screen which is great for street photography. Also, the USB-C in-camera charging is a nice little extra. Hope this helps. Steve 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 22 Author Share #9 Posted February 22 3 hours ago, Steve Miller said: I had a Q2M and loved it primarily due to the incredible low light performance. The files were gorgeous but even though I enjoy shooting in B&W, I can't say that I fully appreciate the subtle differences between a B&W image converted from a color file and the files from a monochrome camera like the Q2M. When the Q3 was announced, I knew I'd take a low light noise hit compared to the Q2M but also figured the Q3 would be at least a half stop better in low light than the Q2 I had previously owned. My assumptions were correct. Nothing will perform as well in low light as the Q2M which I would shoot at 25600, if needed in very low light scenes. However, the Q3 is good enough for me in that regard...I won't hesitate to go up to ISO 8000-10000, and if I was converting to B&W, would go to 16000. That said, the biggest reason for me switching to the Q3 was the increased resolution which allows for more cropping (I LOVE being able to use the Q3 as my 28/35/50 camera) and the flippy screen which is great for street photography. Also, the USB-C in-camera charging is a nice little extra. Hope this helps. Steve Very helpful indeed, thanks Steve. Follow up question for you-- did you notice any differences in terms speed of operation? Things like start up time, wake up time (from standby), writing to card etc etc. I love my film cameras for their immediacy, and I would say the Q2M is just within acceptable. If the Q3 is any slower in these areas I would have to reconsider the upgrade. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusDot Posted February 22 Share #10 Posted February 22 I have no intentions at all to move from Q2M to the Q3 (I know that probably does not answer your question, but I just had to say it! 🙂 ) 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Miller Posted February 22 Share #11 Posted February 22 (edited) 11 hours ago, radialMelt said: Very helpful indeed, thanks Steve. Follow up question for you-- did you notice any differences in terms speed of operation? Things like start up time, wake up time (from standby), writing to card etc etc. I love my film cameras for their immediacy, and I would say the Q2M is just within acceptable. If the Q3 is any slower in these areas I would have to reconsider the upgrade. I remember that the Q2 and Q2M were noticeably slow to start up and clear the buffer at times. The Q3 was definitely an improvement but I still wouldn't say that the Q3 is anything close to the response times that I get with my Z8 (or probably just about any of the high performance bodies from Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic). But I don't know anyone who buys a Leica for speed. Correction...start-up or wake from sleep time is very important in street photography. The Q3 is great 95% of the time but every once in a while, I do find myself wishing it could "get going" a bit quicker. But that's the exception. Steve UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the AF focusing speed is much better with the Q3 compared to the Q2 and Q2M, especially for subject detection (again, still behind the major brands' sports bodies but very nice for a Leica AF camera). If you always shoot in MF and/or use zone focusing, this last improvement won't matter for you. Edited February 22 by Steve Miller 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Miller Posted February 22 Share #12 Posted February 22 You may have already seen this but there's a good comparison between the Q3 and Q2M by Hugh Brownstone of Three Blind Men and an Elephant on YouTube if you're interested. The main comparison starts at 9:30 into the video. In simple terms, I'd stick with the Q2M if you: Love B&W and like the permanent restriction that shooting a monochrom only camera provides (which I think forces you to think more about composition) Truly notice and appreciate the differences between a monochrom image from a monochrom sensor vs a B&W converted one from a color sensor Want the absolute best low light, high ISO noise performance Conversely, I'd get the Q3 if you want: Faster AF speed Better subject detection AF Flippy screen Increased resolution which makes using the Q3 in 50mm crop mode VERY usable (if memory serves me correctly, in 50mm crop mode, you get a 20 MP image with the DOF of a 50mm f/3.0 lens - of course, you still get the light gathering ability of a f/1.7 lens). For internet use, you can even crop to 75mm. As an aside, I LOVE Leica's implementation of crop mode. When you shoot in RAW, you still get the full 60 MP file but when you open it in Lightroom (or other photo editors, I assume), you see the crop applied automatically - but can still get back to the original 28mm frame if you find you want to include something beyond the cropped frame. Very good low light performance, but still at least a stop behind the amazing Q3 USB-C charging which is very convenient Faster operational speed vs Q2 and Q2M but still not blazing fast For me, the benefits of the Q3 greatly outnumbered the Q2M strengths even though the Q2M was such a beautiful camera to shoot with. Steve Leica Q3 vs <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PPJ915T/?tag=lufcustomlink-20" class="notreplace" title="Q2 Amazon Affiliate Link" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none;" rel="nofollow">Q2</a> Monochrom: Choose!" width="200"> 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 22 Author Share #13 Posted February 22 Thanks a lot for this, Steve, really appreciated. Yeah, I've checked those vids a couple times now and it's mostly pretty obvious stuff. The main thing that is motivating me to switch is the need/want for a color-capable digital camera. The Q2M is my only digital camera at the moment, and occasionally I find myself wanting to shoot color in the digital realm (bad weather, fading daylight, interiors, travel where taking film is not practical, product shots, etc.) I think the (tonal) merits of a monochrome sensor are somewhat lost on me, as I prefer a contrasty B&W look anyway (i.e., pushed Tmax). So it comes down to low light performance and overall handling of the camera. If moving to the Q3 doesn't put me back in those areas, I think the upgrade will work for me. Once again, thanks for the input! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Miller Posted February 22 Share #14 Posted February 22 1 hour ago, radialMelt said: Thanks a lot for this, Steve, really appreciated. Yeah, I've checked those vids a couple times now and it's mostly pretty obvious stuff. The main thing that is motivating me to switch is the need/want for a color-capable digital camera. The Q2M is my only digital camera at the moment, and occasionally I find myself wanting to shoot color in the digital realm (bad weather, fading daylight, interiors, travel where taking film is not practical, product shots, etc.) I think the (tonal) merits of a monochrome sensor are somewhat lost on me, as I prefer a contrasty B&W look anyway (i.e., pushed Tmax). So it comes down to low light performance and overall handling of the camera. If moving to the Q3 doesn't put me back in those areas, I think the upgrade will work for me. Once again, thanks for the input! I'm like you with regard to B&W. I love the look, but don't fully appreciate the subtle tonal differences between a monochrom sensor and a B&W converted image from a color sensor. Unless you shoot in extremely low light conditions frequently, I think the Q3 is a better all around camera for you...or at least it is for me. Still tough when you have to pack up the Q2M and ship it to it's next owner! Good luck with your decision. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAronian Posted February 23 Share #15 Posted February 23 On 2/20/2024 at 12:05 PM, radialMelt said: And if so, is there anything about the Q2M you miss? Not so interested in comments regarding the mindset of shooting B&W as I can get that in film. Mostly I am concerned about image quality, speed of operation, and low light performance. Curious to hear from folks who have made the jump. Thanks! I have both Q2M & Q3 and the speed differences are slight after the Q3 2.0.1 firmware update. After being off for an extended time Initial startup and shutdown are slower for both. Startup after being off for an extended period - Initial startup Q2M = 2s, Q3 = 4s. Subsequent startups Q2M = 1s, Q3 = 1s Shutdown is Q2M = 7s, Q3 = 3s. Subsequent shutdowns Q2M = 3s, Q3 = 1s The most noticeable difference is viewfinder blackout and this only applies in single frame mode. Although improved since introduction, the Q3 feels like the blackout is longer. Solved by using multi-frame mode where the blackout doesn't occur. I see no difference in times to write files to memory. Bottom line I prefer the Q3 (resolution, focusing, color) and will probably sell the Q2M, but I'm one of those that find the addition of a tilt-screen superfluous extra bulk. 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 24 Author Share #16 Posted February 24 Thank you, very helpful. Strange the blackout is more significant in the Q3. I would've thought the shutter mechanism, EVF etc remained largely the same. Quote Bottom line I prefer the Q3 (resolution, focusing, color) I think I am leaning in this direction as well. I do love the Q2M but am finding I miss the ability to shoot color in the digital realm. The resolution (read cropability) is also appealing. If I ever want/need "medium format black and white tonality" I'll just shoot some medium format B&W film! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkmc Posted February 28 Share #17 Posted February 28 I loved the Q2M; it was my first Leica. But I wanted the flexibility of BW and color, and bought a Q3 when it was released. The extra resolution makes it so there's not much difference in the photos I shoot converted to BW. (I don't shoot at high ISO generally.) I wish I could have afforded to keep both, because I really like the way the Q2M works, but I like the Q lens enough that I wanted both color and BW options. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 28 Author Share #18 Posted February 28 5 hours ago, kirkmc said: because I really like the way the Q2M works Thanks for sharing your experience! Care to elaborate on this point? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted February 28 Author Share #19 Posted February 28 Decided to look back at my Q2M shots of late and I actually have a number of interior, late night portraits at ISOs 8000 and up. Is this pretty much out of the question with the Q3? Most of them are 1/125s or 1/250s shutter speed though, so I guess I have a bit of wiggle room there to claw back a stop or two... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
radialMelt Posted March 15 Author Share #20 Posted March 15 Well... decided to take the plunge and am now in possession of a Q3! First thing I notice is that it is not nearly as nice in the hand due to the protruding screen. Whether the utility of said screen makes up for this is yet to be seen. I'll try and keep the thread updating with my findings as I get more experience with it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.