Q3 vs. Q2 image rendering

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could anyone who's shot both cameras extensively comment on whether there are differences in the overall look of the images?

Here's where this is coming from: I owned a Q2 and for several years used it as my only camera. I loved it, it was one of the most practical and enjoyable cameras I'd ever used. Then I transitioned to digital M, and I found that I liked the look of my M10 images more than the look of my Q2 images, despite the resolution and sensor "downgrade." I know I'm venturing into subjective / hand-wavey territory here, but the M10 images just seemed gentler and more suited for the kind of relaxed, candid portraiture I mainly do. The Q2 images seemed ultra-sharp and hyper-real by comparison. I now use an M10-R and M10M and, when I look through my Lightroom catalog, I find that I still prefer their images to my Q2 images, even when I use very modern glass (e.g., 28 Elmarit ASPH, 50 Lux ASPH).

Now, when it comes to the Q3, things seem a little different to me. I really like the pictures in the Q3 Images thread, and also the ones I see on Flickr, and the sample DNGs I've been able to download. Everything just seems a little more subtle and gentle. I know that the Q3 is using the M11 sensor, so that must make a difference, but I also suspect that this could all be in my own mind. GAS distorts our perceptions. Looking at other peoples' images only gets you so far.

Can anyone who has used both Q2 and Q3 comment on whether I'm hallucinating? (I won't be even slightly offended to hear that's the case—in fact, I'll be relieved, since it will make me less interested in buying a Q3!)

Edited March 25, 2024 by JoshuaRothman

[Advertisement]

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

[M Street Photographer]

Hello, I was faced with the decision of buying a Q2 or Q3 and for this reason I tested both intensively. I must say in advance that I am taking photos with an m10r.By choosing lenses I can decisively influence the image result, which is normally not possible with the Q. First of all, I would like to tell you that your impression is absolutely correct.For example, portraits with the Q2 or m10r appear a bit more natural and not quite as sharp and therefore not quite as digital, even not a bit clinical.

I assume that due to the excellent lens, the new 60 megapixel sensor and the corresponding firmware, the Q3's technical features have been trimmed very often.In my opinion, you can take very beautiful portraits with the Q3, but I would then create appropriate presets in image editing that are a bit softer and appear a bit more harmonious and charming overall.For example, if I use the Q3 and the internal jpeg, I reduce the sharpness to -1 or -2 and also adjust the image look a little.

So why did I ultimately choose the Q3? Basically, the haptic technology is the same. The operation is also more or less the same, but there are a lot of features where the Q3 is far superior to the Q2. Occasionally I use the looks. 

Edited March 25, 2024 by M Street Photographer

[Casey Jefferson]

This is shot on Q2, does that look undesirable to you?

I absolutely love it if you ask me, I prefer it to the Q3 sample images or available sample DNGs.

Q is going to be different from M rendering but that's the whole point of having fixed lens, it has to render sharp enough to crop.

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 March 26, 2024 by Casey Jefferson

[Qwertynm]

I remember last year when the Q3 was launched there was an early comparison on Leica Rumors that showed the Q2 and Q3 side by side and the sensor in the Q3 is quite visibly an upgrade to the Q2 in every aspect (imho). Some even say the Q116 renders nicer than the Q2 but I can't comment on that as I've never shot these cameras. How the sensor "renders" might be different but you won't ever notice that unless you shoot them side by side.

I'd pick the Q3 over the Q2 in a heartbeat. It's the more modern camera with Better EVF, USB-C charging, fast wireless transfer, Higher capacity battery, flip-out-screen (if you care), slightly higher resolution and PDAF. How the images look in the end is up to the photographer. To get away from the clinical look I use various diffusion filters for different applications. If you think your images are too sharp I can recommend a Tiffen Black Satin. They come in various strength. I sometimes use strength 1 - the higher the number, the stronger the effect. This filters slightly blooms the highlights and adds a bit of grain to the image. For everyday use I'd try out 1/2 strength, the stronger filters are more geared towards video use.

[David Wien]

43 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

I remember last year when the Q3 was launched there was an early comparison on Leica Rumors that showed the Q2 and Q3 side by side and the sensor in the Q3 is quite visibly an upgrade to the Q2 in every aspect (imho). Some even say the Q116 renders nicer than the Q2 but I can't comment on that as I've never shot these cameras. How the sensor "renders" might be different but you won't ever notice that unless you shoot them side by side.

I'd pick the Q3 over the Q2 in a heartbeat. It's the more modern camera with Better EVF, USB-C charging, fast wireless transfer, Higher capacity battery, flip-out-screen (if you care), slightly higher resolution and PDAF. How the images look in the end is up to the photographer. To get away from the clinical look I use various diffusion filters for different applications. If you think your images are too sharp I can recommend a Tiffen Black Satin. They come in various strength. I sometimes use strength 1 - the higher the number, the stronger the effect. This filters slightly blooms the highlights and adds a bit of grain to the image. For everyday use I'd try out 1/2 strength, the stronger filters are more geared towards video use.

For the past 20 or so years, manufacturers have offered us new cameras with ever increasing resolution and have enjoyed the additional sharpness of each new step. Now it would seem that people want to add filters to diffuse this effect. Is it just the swing of the pendulum, or did folks really not want what they asked for all these years? (As they say: "Be careful what you ask for, or you might get it!") 😀

Personally, I bought the Q3 precisely because the results are super sharp: and never too sharp for me. Having used it for four months I am unrepentent about this and a very happy camper. I can sometimes get the same effect with my Canon R6, if I have the right lens for the shot is not languishing at home, though more often than not I need to use Sharpen AI to be satisfied with the results.

Just my 2d worth. 😄

David

[M Street Photographer]

Since I haven't had the Q3 for very long, I haven't tried the following function yet:  I could imagine that if you reduce the resolution to 36 or 18 megapixels, the overall impression of sharpness would be correspondingly lower. I will try it out sometime soon and report back.

I still remember the time when I had an M9 and the 50 1.4. Sumilux. Portraits, even wide open, used to look like dermatologist pictures; they were just incredibly sharp. For this reason, I got a blurring filter from Heliopan and was satisfied afterwards and no longer needed to blur in image editing. 

 

[Qwertynm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 9 Stunden schrieb M Street Photographer:

I could imagine that if you reduce the resolution to 36 or 18 megapixels, the overall impression of sharpness would be correspondingly lower.

I must say I haven’t tried this but I think the inverse would be true. I could be wrong though. My first digital full frame camera had 12.8 MP and produced tack sharp images with a good lens. I don’t think it has anything to do with that. The Summilux in the Q series is a really sharp lens from f/1.7 on in the center. 

[M Street Photographer]

It was just an idea of mine. It is often the case that photos taken with high-resolution sensors (40 or 60 megapixels with the same lens) give a sharper impression than those taken with 18 or 24 megapixels with the same lens.

As I say, I will do a test in a short time.

[Qwertynm]

I think it depends on what medium you compare the images. On a print? On an iPad? On a 4k, 5k, 6k, 8k display?

[M Street Photographer]

The image editing takes place on a 32 inch 4k monitor and at the end it is printed. And before you ask what format it will be printed in, that is a question of the motif.

But even with prints of 20 x 30, you get a sharper impression of a 60 megapixel sensor than with 18 megapixels. and the whole thing can be increased even further if you shoot JPEG with 50, 75 or 90 mm. This is not about the sensibly cropped JPEG images, but simply a test to see whether the sharpness can be reduced by appropriate measures.

It would be interesting if other Q3 owners would also do such a test.And of course report your impressions here.

Edited March 26, 2024 by M Street Photographer

[David Wien]

10 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

Since I haven't had the Q3 for very long, I haven't tried the following function yet:  I could imagine that if you reduce the resolution to 36 or 18 megapixels, the overall impression of sharpness would be correspondingly lower. I will try it out sometime soon and report back.. 

Would this be any different than changing the resolution in software like Photoshop?

David

[M Street Photographer]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb David Wien:

Would this be any different than changing the resolution in software like Photoshop?

David

To be honest, I don't know, but I want to try out the camera and not any software. In image editing I can also blur the image and remove the sheep. That's not the point.But I will shoot raw and jpeg. If you have more experience or know something, please let me know, then I might be able to save myself some work.

Edited March 26, 2024 by M Street Photographer

[Qwertynm]

vor 34 Minuten schrieb David Wien:

Would this be any different than changing the resolution in software like Photoshop?

It’s the same thing

[M Street Photographer]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb Qwertynm:

It’s the same thing

If you say so, of course I believe you, but an explanation would also be nice.

[Qwertynm]

The number of pixels on the sensor stay the same whether you shoot 60MP or set the camera to 36. The processor in the camera takes the 60MP and downsampels to 36 or 18. Downsampling happens after the picture is taken, not during. This would be called pixel binning I believe and doesn’t happen in the Q3. Photoshop or any other raw-converter is able to downsample a file to any size you choose. The algorithm in photoshop might be different to the one in the Q3 but I don’t believe it makes that much of a difference in real life applications. I personally always shoot 60MP and export to only 6MP jpgs for web(cloud) storage. Larger only for prints.

[radialMelt]

3 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

This would be called pixel binning I believe and doesn’t happen in the Q3

The Q3 does, in fact, use pixel binning. At least according to the reviews and specs. So it is not the same as a simple downsample in PS.

[Qwertynm]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb radialMelt:

The Q3 does, in fact, use pixel binning. At least according to the reviews and specs. So it is not the same as a simple downsample in PS.

You're right. I stand corrected.

Zitat

It's a revolutionary gem, being the world's first full-frame sensor with true pixel-binning technology. source: https://leicarumors.com/2023/12/21/leica-q3-camera-field-test.aspx/

 

[Mikep996]

I do not understand concern that with some sensors a picture is "too sharp."  In the film days, new film formulations were developed over time with the whole idea of producing "sharper" images.  Now we don't want sharp images?  Just make them less sharp in post if that's what you want.  The  same is (has always been) done in the darkroom with contrast filters or specific graded paper or paper "finish" (gloss, matt, etc).  When printing in the darkroom, portraits are almost never printed on gloss paper with high contrast; architecture often is, etc.  The same "adjustment" can be made in digital post to "soften" the image.  I want the sharpest image possible from the camera (film or digital).  If I want it less sharp, it's easy to make it so.  The other way 'round is not.

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Le Chef]

7 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

I do not understand concern that with some sensors a picture is "too sharp."

Time to get the old Vaseline filter out and strap it on if you prefer smeary images. Put on some 70’s music and you’re on your way.

[JoshuaR]

30 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

I do not understand concern that with some sensors a picture is "too sharp."

Perhaps I mis-wrote in my original post, but I suppose this is why I used the word “rendering” in the title. My 28mm Summicron ASPH is extremely sharp, but its rendering on my M10-R is very different from the rendering of the 28mm lens in the Q2. And no amount of post-processing or Vaseline-smearing will make the Q2 images look like the Summicron images. (Yes, I know how to use Lightroom, Photoshop, and Capture One.) The lens and sensor combinations are simply different. This isn’t a value judgment about the Q2, just a statement of preference; I prefer the Summicron rendering, which is why I ultimately sold my Q2.

And yet the Q3 images look so good to me! They seem like they might fit my perhaps idiosyncratic or unjustifiable preferences better. Maybe?!