T44ISKN

£95 from London to South Korea with DHL this week. Ouch!

That's really kind of you to say so! Having owned most of the Fuji X cameras in the past, I'm not sufficiently impressed by the Q, given the massive price differential. It's lovely, but not £2000 better! Maybe I just expected too much having read the glowing reviews?

I'm probably going to be putting my 3-4 week old Q up for sale in this forums classifieds section this week. I'm just not loving it enough.

Funnily enough, after 3-4 weeks of owning the Q, I'm considering going back the other way. Having owned most of the Fuji X cameras in the past, I'm not sufficiently impressed by the Q, given the massive price differential. Maybe I just expected to much? There's no denying the quality of the lens and the build though. I'm probably going to put my Q up for sale in the Classifieds section here and pick up an X100T. Anyone interested, PM me.

I agree that the X-T1 EVF is much easier to view when wearing glasses.

Yup - the Ricoh GR has the very useful TAv mode. Works well for zone focussing when you want to stay at f/8, shutter speed at 125 and have the ISO adjust according to the ambient light. Becomes even more useful when you introduce exposure compensation into the mix!

Hi Jaapv - I tend to leave camera set to AWB - this is what it chose. Thighslapper - I agree that it's not a great picture. I picked it as an example as it clearly showed the phenomenon, to support this discussion.

Here you go Jaap - the original shot is not massively underexposed.

Thanks. To be honest, I never move the sharpening sliders in ACR, so they may well be set to a default that is too high for files coming out of the Q. I'll take a look at that article later. Cheers, T

Sure - I'll do this when I get home. It was 2 stops underexposed - I've pushed the Exposure slider +2 EV using ACR - no other changes. Looks like the Q is a lot less tolerant of exposure mistakes than the "ISO-less" sensors in the Fuji cameras. It's all good - I'll just have to learn to be less sloppy with my technique!!

Thanks again for your thoughts. Dfine 2 is very effective at removing the banding, but I do find it has a tendency to remove other fine horizontal detail in the picture. I'm not surprised - how would it know the difference between banding and real information? Anyway, the jury is still out for me. I definitely need more time to gel with the Q.

Thanks very much. Nothing to do with my version of Adobe Camera RAW it seems, as you're also seeing it in LR6. I don't know - maybe I was spoiled by my Fujis and expected the Q to perform at least as well, given the price differential and gushing reviews. Anyone else got any thoughts on banding? Is this something that could be improved in a firmware update?

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm amazed that the ISO performance has been given such glowing reviews. I'm using ACR that came bundled with Elements 11 to convert the DNG files. Do you think this is having any impact on the banding / image quality? I can't quite face getting to grips with the free Lightroom yet. Any tips on how to use Dfine 2? Do you use it for noise reduction also, or just banding removal? Do you apply it to the whole image, or just brush-in the effect where it's needed? Thanks again!

Hello all. I've owned my new Leica Q for just under 2 weeks now and I'm still getting to grips with it. This is the latest in a long line of "street photography" oriented cameras that I have owned (Leica M8.2, Leica X1, Ricoh GR, Fuji X100, Fuji X-T1), so I can't help but compare their performance - especially after all of the rave reviews that the Q has received. I've got to admit that I'm feeling a little underwhelmed so far - I'll reserve judgement for, as there is bound to be a learning curve with any new camera. One thing that has really surprised me is the amount of banding that is present at shots taken at 200 ISO (admittedly pushed 2EV in ACR). I know that I can push the image through the Define 2 plug-in, but should it really be necessary at almost base ISO? I honestly think I got better performance from my M8.2 at ISO 200. Is this just a case of user error? Or have I got a dud? Thanks for your thoughts! T Crop of full image, resized to 1400 x 1400: 100% crop: 100% crop:

Isn't that an X2?