Large format vs Q2M in traditional fine art landscape photography

[Richard K]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those who have tried both, how do your images compare in terms of rendering/tonality? I imagine resolution is better with Q2M but I wonder about smoothness of tone, etc.

Any work online/YouTube comparing both?

[Advertisement]

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

[Pintpot]

The Ansel Adams Project 2023 (youtube.com)

This may help Richard, there are other YouTube posts out there. I have had some, limited, experience with 5x4, but mostly digital MM 246. The actual making of an image is, obviously, vastly different with the equipment involved. Cheers! 

[MikeD70]

You can't really expect the same quality when comparing an image from large format,   (4X5/8X10 film) to 35mm digital.  They're just not in the same ballpark.  But I guess you could have a lot of fun noting the differences.  I shot a LOT of 4x5 landscapes in the 90's, they are still unbeatable, but I always wished I had gone to 8x10.  I started with 645, and did a lot with the Golden Gate at night.  Then 4x5 came along.  Then the cursed digital format, we all live by today.  Ah, the good old days, slow was good.  But I digress, have fun in your quest.

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, MikeD70 said:

You can't really expect the same quality when comparing an image from large format,   (4X5/8X10 film) to 35mm digital.  They're just not in the same ballpark.  But I guess you could have a lot of fun noting the differences.  I shot a LOT of 4x5 landscapes in the 90's, they are still unbeatable, but I always wished I had gone to 8x10.  I started with 645, and did a lot with the Golden Gate at night.  Then 4x5 came along.  Then the cursed digital format, we all live by today.  Ah, the good old days, slow was good.  But I digress, have fun in your quest.

A while back a customer of mine showed me some 8x10 Kodachromes he had done in the 90’s.

Stunning…nothing I’ve seen in digital compared.

[DreiPunkte]

In my oppinnion you cant compare these two sysstems.
On the technical side think about the possibilities that the LF camera's movements offer you.
It's about much more than just correcting a few buildings.
Also look at the transition from sharpness to blur which you can easy manipulate, and so on.

Resolution and sharpness are things that are counted. The viewer judges the finished image only with his eyes
and can then follow the photographer or not.
When you have a look on the soul side of composing a landscape than a big groundglas under a darkcloth
is unbeatable to let your thoughts run and you are in the enviroment.

On the otherside side dont forget the postproduktion when you compare the two systems.
When you are on the pixeld road you can do that on the couch while having a TVshow.
If you are a silverminer you live instead of TVshows in your hellskitchen with all your
chemistry and long forgotten equipment.

I always think when discusing systems at Helmut Newton
The chef to Newton: your images are excellent. you have certainly a good camera.
Newton after the meal: your food was magnificent. you must have good pots...