Q2 - current day performance

[Markey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

So essentially not very good at its one job.

Leica is really not the place to look for industry leading tech is it. Everything that’s not the M is begged or borrowed and does a good enough job but there’s always many cameras that will do it better for a lot less cash. 

Succinctly put .

[Advertisement]

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

[Dazzajl]

30 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

And yet there's no camera I would rather use for real world photography and high quality photos (rather than spec competition).

Strange,

 

25 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

Let’s see…Mercedes, Rolex,  Harley Davidson, Sonos…none are ‘industrial leading tech.

Sorry, not going to trade my Leica for a plastic Sony or my Rolex for a Casio.

There was no intention to ruffle feathers there chaps. When I’m at work, all that really matters is the results and for that, Leica is not the camera of choice. When I’m shooting for the pleasure of shooting, Leica is very much the choice. 
 

Quite often the journey is far more important than the destination. 

[LocalHero1953]

10 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

 

There was no intention to ruffle feathers there chaps. When I’m at work, all that really matters is the results and for that, Leica is not the camera of choice. When I’m shooting for the pleasure of shooting, Leica is very much the choice. 
 

Quite often the journey is far more important than the destination. 

Not every different opinion represents ruffled feathers.

I agree that what matters is the results. My post was intended to convey that that was why I choose Leicas, though I get pleasure from using them as well.

[Dazzajl]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Not every different opinion represents ruffled feathers.

I agree that what matters is the results. My post was intended to convey that that was why I choose Leicas, though I get pleasure from using them as well.

If it’s purely results that you chose your gear by, then Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji all make systems that will run rings around anything Leica produces and it’s not just what you see in screen or printed images. It’s how many shots you get per shutter click that have achieved precise focus and exposure. How long you can shoot before you get buffer snag, the speed and quality of servicing etc. 

What Leica offer that is unmatched by any other manufacturer and by a large margin, is an exquisite shooting experience and a higher quality of materials. To make any other argument is to reject the data and ignore the facts. 
 

Unless the OP’s wife enjoys the process of making photos as much or more than preserving the moments of the children growing up, I’ll wager she won’t really use the Q. The bulk and bother of taking it around won’t be worth it compared to the great images that a modern phone will make. None of which would stop me buying one if I was in the same position of course ☺️

[liggy]

On 12/21/2024 at 3:53 AM, costa43 said:

Hi all

I want to buy a Q for my wife. The Q2 specifically as it seems the market is flooded with good deals for them at the moment. Being 5 years old it’s a pretty mature platform now, after all the firmware updates over the years, where does the autofocus sit with tracking/face detect? My wife will primarily be using it for pictures of our daughter/family snaps. Is it usable or will it frustrate? 

Cheers

 

I think the most important factor is making sure that a dedicated camera is what your wife wants.  

My wife much prefers to use her iPhone 15 Pro for photos and she has the option of using an XQ1, an X100S and my Q2 Reporter.  She just doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying around more stuff - especially when I almost always have a camera on hand in addition to my iPhone.

The Q2 AF is adequate.  The AF-C isn’t worth using imo but I’m spoiled by my A1.

Edited December 22, 2024 by liggy

[bobtodrick]

1 hour ago, Dazzajl said:

 

There was no intention to ruffle feathers there chaps. When I’m at work, all that really matters is the results and for that, Leica is not the camera of choice. When I’m shooting for the pleasure of shooting, Leica is very much the choice. 
 

Quite often the journey is far more important than the destination. 

That’s where I’ll disagree.

As far as results the Q gives me what I want…saleable images.  Images…what photography is all about.

If my work demanded the most up to date A/F I might consider something else…but it doesn’t, so I don’t.

Edited December 22, 2024 by bobtodrick

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/21/2024 at 2:45 PM, costa43 said:

I was hoping for a 5 at least! 🤣

Nope. Face detect and AFC on the Q2 is absolute garbage. 

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

If it’s purely results that you chose your gear by, then Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji all make systems that will run rings around anything Leica produces and it’s not just what you see in screen or printed images. It’s how many shots you get per shutter click that have achieved precise focus and exposure. How long you can shoot before you get buffer snag, the speed and quality of servicing etc. 

What Leica offer that is unmatched by any other manufacturer and by a large margin, is an exquisite shooting experience and a higher quality of materials. To make any other argument is to reject the data and ignore the facts. 
 

Unless the OP’s wife enjoys the process of making photos as much or more than preserving the moments of the children growing up, I’ll wager she won’t really use the Q. The bulk and bother of taking it around won’t be worth it compared to the great images that a modern phone will make. None of which would stop me buying one if I was in the same position of course ☺️

The results I look for are not determined by shots per shutter click that are in focus, but by shots that others (and I) value for their subject, composition, light, colour and, yes, focus. These qualities are determined not just by electronics, but also by the lens, colour science and ergonomics (and something of the photographer, of course). If it's just electronics you want, then certainly there are other brands that have better specs. 

As for the Q series, I'm curious which other brands Leica has 'begged or borrowed' from. Sure, there will be elements of the electronics, and of course the sensor, that will have been developed by others, but there is no other camera that has a package with that size, discrete operation, lens quality, and with a similar analogue+digital interface. If you want that whole package, there is no close choice (Sony RX1? Ricoh GRiii?).

Quote

To make any other argument is to reject the data and ignore the facts. 

I believe you mean data and facts pertaining to your particular needs (AF, buffer size). In making my choices, I take account of a wider range of relevant data and facts. I'm certainly not going to defend Leica's servicing, but it has not been a criterion in my choices.

YMMV.

[boojum]

11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The results I look for are not determined by shots per shutter click that are in focus, but by shots that others (and I) value for their subject, composition, light, colour and, yes, focus. These qualities are determined not just by electronics, but also by the lens, colour science and ergonomics (and something of the photographer, of course). If it's just electronics you want, then certainly there are other brands that have better specs. 

As for the Q series, I'm curious which other brands Leica has 'begged or borrowed' from. Sure, there will be elements of the electronics, and of course the sensor, that will have been developed by others, but there is no other camera that has a package with that size, discrete operation, lens quality, and with a similar analogue+digital interface. If you want that whole package, there is no close choice (Sony RX1? Ricoh GRiii?).

I believe you mean data and facts pertaining to your particular needs (AF, buffer size). In making my choices, I take account of a wider range of relevant data and facts. I'm certainly not going to defend Leica's servicing, but it has not been a criterion in my choices.

YMMV.

 

Can I sum your post by saying you buy Leica for personal reasons?  A perfectly valid means of determining purchase.  

[LocalHero1953]

8 minutes ago, boojum said:

 

Can I sum your post by saying you buy Leica for personal reasons?  A perfectly valid means of determining purchase.  

Well hello, boojum - nice to see you on this thread as well.

Yes - like most everyone else: personal reasons, based to my personal photographic needs and wants. I guess if you're an assistant pro, using what your boss tells you, or a child using whatever they've been given then personal reasons don't apply.

So do you just google for 'best camera'? Or post a thread here 'what camera should I buy?' and then just buy what the algorithm or the forum tells you?

[boojum]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Well hello, boojum - nice to see you on this thread as well.

Yes - like most everyone else: personal reasons, based to my personal photographic needs and wants. I guess if you're an assistant pro, using what your boss tells you, or a child using whatever they've been given then personal reasons don't apply.

So do you just google for 'best camera'? Or post a thread here 'what camera should I buy?' and then just buy what the algorithm or the forum tells you?

 

I repeat here what I just posted elsewhere, ad hominems are a tacit admission of argument loss. 

We are all influenced by personal preference.  Romance is a good example.  It is rarely founded upon reason.  And I, too, make decisions on purchases by weighing personal preference.  But to exclude or diminish technical aspects of a technical instrument can be unwise.  Say, for example, buying a camera solely on its looks.  An old Alpa or Kine Exacta is an exciting and lovely example of the camera maker's art.  Likewise the Contax II.  But to my taste they have to also deliver a good image. In film cameras this is, of course, the lens.

When we move along to digital it is, of course, the lens and the sensor.  So, for argument's sake, if you were color blind how valid would your choice be of a digital camera for color?  Not very.  If you had some other ocular disorder, how valid would your choice of a digital camera be?  If you were favorably inclined toward, say, a yellow cast, how valid would your choice of a digital camera be?  I could go on but I will spare both of us.  Yes, your choice would work just fine for you, but for the rest of the world it would work not quite so well.  Do you sell what you shoot?  Then you get the point. If what you create with these fine tools, the image, is unacceptable to almost all others what's the point?  To suit yourself?  You can but if you are commercial that won't keep the lights on.

So the question before us is not so much about personal preference in photographic gear choices but how much weight to accord personal choices.  To strike a reasonable balance would seem wise.

[LocalHero1953]

TL:DR

[boojum]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

TL:DR

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by jaapv
As hominem removed

[jaapv]

12 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Nope. Face detect and AFC on the Q2 is absolute garbage. 

Isn’t that rather overstated? They are certainly adequate for everyday use. Remember the design purpose of the camera: an everyday companion for home and travel.
The camera is not meant to be used for reporting on the Olympics, birds in flight, dangerous wildlife in central Africa, professional event photography, (although I can see use as a snapshot second string there) etc. 
It works perfectly well within its use envelope. 

[LocalHero1953]

FWIW I find the low light performance and AF performance of the Q3 43 to be good enough to substitute for the SL2-S+24/90 for drama and music performance, but the Q2 was just too unreliable for AF for the same purpose, even in good light. OTOH I found the Q2 great for casual, travel and social stuff.  

Edited December 23, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Precisely. I am sure that Leica did not have  professional theatre photography in mind when deciding on the design parameters. It is clearly meant as a high-level point and shoot with digital-as opposed to optical- zoom for daily use. 

[costa43]

5 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

The key point for giving a gift is totally ignoring what the wife actually wants.

Touche! I have a rubber arm when it comes to gear and beer, very easy to talk myself into both!

[bobtodrick]

3 hours ago, boojum said:

 

I repeat here what I just posted elsewhere, ad hominems are a tacit admission of argument loss. 

We are all influenced by personal preference.  Romance is a good example.  It is rarely founded upon reason.  And I, too, make decisions on purchases by weighing personal preference.  But to exclude or diminish technical aspects of a technical instrument can be unwise.  Say, for example, buying a camera solely on its looks.  An old Alpa or Kine Exacta is an exciting and lovely example of the camera maker's art.  Likewise the Contax II.  But to my taste they have to also deliver a good image. In film cameras this is, of course, the lens.

When we move along to digital it is, of course, the lens and the sensor.  So, for argument's sake, if you were color blind how valid would your choice be of a digital camera for color?  Not very.  If you had some other ocular disorder, how valid would your choice of a digital camera be?  If you were favorably inclined toward, say, a yellow cast, how valid would your choice of a digital camera be?  I could go on but I will spare both of us.  Yes, your choice would work just fine for you, but for the rest of the world it would work not quite so well.  Do you sell what you shoot?  Then you get the point. If what you create with these fine tools, the image, is unacceptable to almost all others what's the point?  To suit yourself?  You can but if you are commercial that won't keep the lights on.

So the question before us is not so much about personal preference in photographic gear choices but how much weight to accord personal choices.  To strike a reasonable balance would seem wise.

Agree.

Everything we purchase is to some degree decided on by personal taste.  What is acceptable A/F for me (for example) may not be for someone else.  
And what fits well in my hand and feels ‘right’ (ergonomics) may not for you.

But blanket statements such as ‘Face detect and AFC is absolute garbage’ are ridiculous.

Edited December 23, 2024 by bobtodrick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Isn’t that rather overstated? They are certainly adequate for everyday use. 

The OP is asking about face detect and AFC. Face detect on the Q2 works only if you are perfectly still in a well illuminated area, and even there it fails miserably without explanation too often. So no, it’s not adequate when it fails at the one thing it’s supposed to do. AFC is just as bad. Can you work around it? Sure you can. Set the camera to AFS and field/spot and you’re good to go. But the question was not about workarounds, but more about an out of the box solution. There’s a reason why Leica did a two generation jump with the Q3, from the Maestro II of the Q2 it went straight to the Maestro IV chip. 

[Ko.Fe.]

On 12/21/2024 at 12:02 PM, Cogito said:

Unless she's intrigued by the history and heritage of Leica and willing to put up with AF that was substandard five years ago, she'll be frustrated. If she's used to manually focusing and loves the tactile experience of manipulating a fine piece of german engineering, like I and many here on the forums, and she'll enjoy it. 

If you do end up buying her a Q, I'd love to read her thoughts on the camera, please post them here. 

Personally, I have tens of thousands of dollars worth of sony cameras/lenses(for professional work) and a Q343(which I love,) but I (mostly) take family snaps with an iPhone. I did use the Q343 for some extended-family shot in a new england tavern, to my eye vastly superior to the ones shot with an iphone, but no-one else in the family seems to care. If she doesn't have a recent iPhone or Pixel, that's what I'd get her for Christmas. If she's a serious photographer, please disregard. 

I rarely own phones, but employment does it for me.

At my current job I skipped iPhone after using them throughout several generations and switched to Samsung Galaxy.  It is first phone I'm finding photos been OK. 

My version is very compact, but not underdog for computing.

Photographer or not, it is mostly the size choice.  Mobile phones are superior to cameras for instant sharing to another phones.  But if where is demand for prints and viewing on large screens even 10MP APS-C camera is ahead of any phone. 

Edited December 23, 2024 by Ko.Fe.