Q2M vs Q3M …

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have had the Q, the Q2 and the Q43. I didn’t like the performance of the Q2 with lack of light. To me, the Q3 performed much better in that aspect.

Low light performance of the Q2M is somewhere near the m10m. How much better will be the Q3M in low light? Will there be a noticeable difference when photographing in, for example, a dim light bar/cafe?

Is the difference comparable with the difference between m10m and m11m?

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr Perceptive]

Dynamic Range v ISO

Q2M is roughly one stop better than the Q2

Q3 is roughly the same as Q2M (advantages of a BSI sensor)

I'd expect the Q3M to be in the order of 1 stop better than the Q3

[Olaf_ZG]

One stop better, but does it need to be offset with a higher shutterspeed due to movement visible due to higher mp?

will the image show nicer noise, feel more film like? What will be the significance difference image wise between the 2 and 3?

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

One stop better, but does it need to be offset with a higher shutterspeed due to movement visible due to higher mp?

will the image show nicer noise, feel more film like? What will be the significance difference image wise between the 2 and 3?

The linear resolution difference is about 14%. In theory, one would need a 14% faster shutter speed. In practice, I have set 1/15 sec as the slowest shutter speed for both Q2 and Q3.

I have yet to see a digital camera with film-grain-like noise. Some digital noise may be more pleasing, but to get the film grain, I use post-processors. Also, to emulate negative film grain, one needs to add grain to highlights, not to shadows. It is the opposite with digital.

[Derbyshire Man]

With the M11M I find that unless one is happy to crush the dark and shadow areas of an image there is a significant risk of waffle at anything greater than ISO 50,000. So although the grain size is more impressive it really hits the buffers badly sometimes. I also find it impossible to predict when that is going to be. Often it's quite subtle but any hint of trying to increase structure and it can precipitate it. It is better if processed through C1 than LR but even still, I think that is because C1 treats the images differently with less inherent structure at the first pass.

If willing to crush blacks and darker areas, increase overall contrast rather than structure then 100-200k is possible but definitely not to be relied on.

Clearly it's pretty phenomenal anyway and I love using it but I wouldn't say the average image out of my M11M is any better or more useful than the Q2M used to be. I'd imagine that crosses over to the Q3M. I do much prefer being able to be flexible with the lens however.

Just to be clear, I used to find the same on the Q2M before it somehow pupated and became an M11M.

Edited 9 hours ago by Derbyshire Man