Q3 Haze & Freezing

[LraStn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using the Q3 28 since June '24.

I bought it because I obsessively love the original Q, and I was concerned that if it failed me on the job (I'm a wedding photographer), I would be devastated not to specifically have a Q back up rather than simply that focal length covered in a lens such as my 24-70 f2.8. The only problem I ever had with the Q1 was the buffer filling up too quickly during key moments, unlike my SL2-S's, which I rarely outpaced. So I purchased the Q3 to solve two problems, that I wanted two Q's and I needed more speed. 

There are several things I find very disappointing about the Q3. For me, it lacks the magic of the Q1. I have the Q3 set to vivid and the colors often still look drab. Secondly, and to get to the point of this post, the amount of haze is disconcerting. Why is this camera so hazy?? I haven't shot the Q1 and Q3 side by side, but here is Q3 with lots of haze on a city skyline and SL2-S 50mm APO with no haze. 

I have also recently experience the dreaded freezing (not merely buffering, but truly frozen) which was only solved by popping the battery out. In that instance, I was trying to shoot quickly in M-DNG mode. Yesterday, no freezing problems when I stuck to my old habit of shooting in S-DNG mode. Hopefully this is a good work around for my purposes. 

I would love to hear any explanations or thoughts anyone has as to why this Q3 is hazy/glowy and also quite drab. These images are edited to look similar, and it was a gray day, so this is not intended to show the dullness I'm experiencing as much as the haze. Will add an example of that later, I need to get back to editing yesterday's job. Thanks for any input anyone has.  

 

 

 

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!

[JTLeica]

I see what you mean on the haze, but without seeing the scene in person and the camera it’s hard to tell.

My immediate impression would be either a mist filter, a smudge on the lens, a smudge on the filter, or maybe most likely some negative dehaze or clarity in photoshop behind the subject.

Hard to say. Could be haze in the lens but I’d image that’s a very unlikely outcome.

The sun could have hit the lens? Maybe making some haze or flare that way.

Colours out of the camera are good to me, but I edit them so… never bothers me anyway 

Edited November 3, 2024 by JTLeica

[frame-it]

1 hour ago, LraStn said:

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!

 

the glow around the buildings could possible from the sun or flare, but not the glowish feeling on water, the especially in the humans plane of focus

[LraStn]

5 minutes ago, frame-it said:

the glow around the buildings could possible from the sun or flare, but not the glowish feeling on water, the especially in the humans plane of focus

Yeah- I'm used to some flare of course when shooting into sun, but the two photos I shared are shot in the same direction, within a few minutes of each other. No glow on the SL2-S. I wonder if I have a bad Q3 or if they are all like this. As I mentioned, I have plenty of other similar examples, where the pics are just too glowly. And, I love glow- it's part of my style! But too much is too much. 

[LocalHero1953]

Can you confirm which image is which? The file name of the first starts with Q, but the second starts with D. Is the Q image cropped?

The most obvious failing I see is in the overexposed second one, with clipped sky highlights along the line of buildings. The defocusing of the buildings and water in the second may hide any 'glow'. Were they shot at the same ISO/A/S?

And I don't see any water in the plane of focus of the people - it’s all beyond them.

Edit. I’m also puzzled by your statement about setting to Vivid. If you’re shooting raw, as you imply, a Vivid setting will have no effect on the  dng file. 

Edited November 3, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Le Chef]

Did you process both images in post? Chicago gets hazy skies. Easy to correct in Lightroom, as is leveling the images. It would also help to know your settings and EXIF data for both.

Edited November 3, 2024 by Le Chef

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

44 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

And I don't see any water in the plane of focus of the people - it’s all beyond them.

 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, frame-it said:

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!

Assuming the water is below the level of the land, I suspect the water you mark is further away than the people. In the second shot it looks OOF. But the OP can confirm. 

[frame-it]

3 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Assuming the water is below the level of the land, I suspect the water you mark is further away than the people. In the second shot it looks OOF. But the OP can confirm. 

yes of course, but this pic looks like its at f11++

[David Wien]

Please could you post a direct comparison of the Q and Q3, with the same settings and the same subject, so that we can see what you are trying to describe? I dont have a Q1, but I dont recognise your description in shots taken with my Q3.

David

[LraStn]

1 hour ago, David Wien said:

Please could you post a direct comparison of the Q and Q3, with the same settings and the same subject, so that we can see what you are trying to describe? I dont have a Q1, but I dont recognise your description in shots taken with my Q3.

David

Thanks for letting me know David, and yes I will try that soon. Today I did some color tests, and the Q1 was more accurate. Will post as soon as I can. 

[JTLeica]

9 hours ago, LraStn said:

Yeah- I'm used to some flare of course when shooting into sun, but the two photos I shared are shot in the same direction, within a few minutes of each other. No glow on the SL2-S. I wonder if I have a bad Q3 or if they are all like this. As I mentioned, I have plenty of other similar examples, where the pics are just too glowly. And, I love glow- it's part of my style! But too much is too much. 

The Q photo didn’t have too much glow at all. Just in the building. No two shots are the same so the sun could have been in a slightly different position vs the clouds, highlighting the haze more.

Try and test the Q more against the sun at different angles. Only internal haze, oil from a finger smudge etc could cause that type of look I think, not just a bad lens

[Kozonoh]

If you look at the building on the right side of the pic it really looks like a flare.

[Le Chef]

6 hours ago, Kozonoh said:

If you look at the building on the right side of the pic it really looks like a flare.

The sun sets directly behind the line of buildings which run north/south on the right of the images. Quite likely flare from late afternoon sun.

[LraStn]

Well, user error re the haze- it was caused by a filter on the camera, which I though twas only there to protect the lens. No more over-glowy or hazy shots. I did some color tests that I will post soon. Q3 is good of course, but I do think the Q1 colors are better. 

[ruskkyle]

Ah, I was going to ask that but didn’t want to be rude 😆

As for the colours, they were always going to be different - the sensors are nearly ten years apart. You could try photographing the same scene on the same settings on both cameras, then in Lightroom edit the Q3 to match the Q image. From there simply save the adjustments as an import preset.

[LocalHero1953]

The Q3 has an extra stop of dynamic range over the Q (acc to specs) which might affect SOOC colours - easily corrected in post, of course.

Edited November 9, 2024 by LocalHero1953