New Leica Q2

Some early Leica Q shots

Some early Leica Q shots

I indicated below that I would post some shots from my new Leica Q (the original one) for those interested to see how that generation of Q performs. I have not had time yet to use the camera seriously but have taken a few shots while out at dinner in a restaurant and at home in my lounge room. In each case the images have been shot with available light in what was, again in each case, pretty "ordinary" light at best.

The one deficit that is potentially (I will know more as I gain experience) a little disappointing is what seems to be a relative lack of "overhead" to pull back blown highlights even though all my shots are DNG. Not sure what is going on here other than admittedly particularly difficult and contrary lighting in a couple of the images. The RAW files produced by the Q are pretty large and hence not compressed so I should have expected there to be lots of data still there to be revealed. It may be that I shot without any compensation dialed in whereas usually I like to shoot at least half stop under to reduce / avoid blown highlights and to provide more scope to correct blown highlights. It's just that the blown highlights here were more blown than I expected. Never the less other aspects of the image are very good and much as I hoped and expected. (And maybe there is better software than Lightroom for processing DNG files though in general I have found Lightroom to be excellent for pulling data out of blown highlights and too dark shadows).

The processing of these images is minimal incidentally, - a little tonal adjustment and a very minor touch of sharpening - Q files seem not to need much in any event and that is a Godsent as I usually have to work more extensively on images from other cameras to get a final image I am happy to run with. )

A shot at dinner (difficult lighting admittedly) which shows the above and the sharpness and clarity of the lens which offsets that issue by other virtues. If anything the lens is almost too sharp for flattering portraits as skin pores and every skin defect show up clearly when viewed at full resolution. Still I won't complain. It is nice to have a lens which is almost unfailingly this sharp. (Not sure why wifey is beginning to poke her tongue out. I suspect she is talking. What, her talk? That's unusual -hahahahahahaha)

mss3Ak9.jpg


Another shot in the dark confines of the tapas bar. The ambient lighting was considerably darker than shown here - the out of the camera shot required some brightening to display well here. The camera locked onto the background (my bad - not the camera's fault and notwithstanding the dark conditions, AF lock was near instantaneous). But the effectiveness of the image stabilization is made perfectly apparent by the blur of the moving subject against the very sharp image of the writing on the rear wall.

X1aVW8y.jpg


A general scene setting shot of my lounge room. Sharp uniformly with pleasant yet neutral rendering.

AwMFtWo.jpg


This shot gives an idea of how the bokeh looks. Not bad for a 28mm lens though if this were a fast 50mm I would regard the bokeh as only average at best. However, nothing to complain about and lots to be happy with.

o32HKGu.jpg


And another shot...........Here I think the bokeh to be smoother, with less of the "busy" character evident in the previous shot.

u12v0GG.jpg


and yet another..........

TLoDa18.jpg


Here I missed focus ever so slightly somehow, but I kind of like it as it gives another perspective on how this lens renders.

H3DujAb.jpg
 
This camera is so intriguing, and feels like it's almost the camera of the future, a small fixed-prime device with the MP and stabilization to make it possible for a good crop-to-zoom workflow.

That idea of simulating longer lenses with in-camera cropping is very, very enticing, but for someone like me, who shoots mostly 50 with a 35 as a wide option, the loss in MP at 50 still feels too big. And that's not even considering the loss of the subject separation you get by cropping a 28mm prime instead of using a 50.

As an aside, can anyone speak to how the 35/50/75 frameline functionality works on a Q? I've been using the digital teleconverter on my X100F to great effect, but my major pet peeve is that it defaults to a 35mm frame every time I turn the camera off or it goes to sleep. Does the Leica default back to 28mm in the same way? Or will it hold the last frameline you selected?

As everyone else says, though, I still want it. It's so close to being the Leica I've been dreaming of.

PS--Here's a pretty interesting article from Macfilos digging into the real implications of the crop-to-zoom workflow I discussed above.
 
Agreed... not to mention it’s a sloppy way to photograph in most cases.

Yes, you can crop to zoom with any camera, but some are better suited for it, and the Q2 seems designed (at least in part) to enable this workflow. A direct quote from the article I linked, for those who don't want to read it:

"Leica’s chief lens designer, Peter Karbe, believes that with today’s high-performance lenses and superior sensors, crop to zoom is definitely a viable proposition. He made the point forcefully during his presentation to the LHSA 50th anniversary meeting in Wetzlar last October."

Furthermore, we're not talking about cropping after the fact, we're talking about a camera that either presents a live view of the cropped size, or framelines at the cropped size. That's not possible with "any camera," and even if it were, it would be much less pragmatic with a camera that had a lower-MP sensor and no stabilization. And since the framelines are there, it's really not a particularly sloppy way to photograph.

Not to say it's the only way to work, but I think it's myopic to dismiss crop-to-zoom as a real possibility in 2019.
 
Yes, you can crop to zoom with any camera, but some are better suited for it, and the Q2 seems designed (at least in part) to enable this workflow. A direct quote from the article I linked, for those who don't want to read it:

"Leica’s chief lens designer, Peter Karbe, believes that with today’s high-performance lenses and superior sensors, crop to zoom is definitely a viable proposition. He made the point forcefully during his presentation to the LHSA 50th anniversary meeting in Wetzlar last October."

Furthermore, we're not talking about cropping after the fact, we're talking about a camera that either presents a live view of the cropped size, or framelines at the cropped size. That's not possible with "any camera," and even if it were, it would be much less pragmatic with a camera that had a lower-MP sensor and no stabilization. And since the framelines are there, it's really not a particularly sloppy way to photograph.

Not to say it's the only way to work, but I think it's myopic to dismiss crop-to-zoom as a real possibility in 2019.

I understand completely and you’re right that it isn’t as sloppy as after the fact. I concede. However, cropping a $5000 Leica FF down to APSC and M43 respectively seems like a worse choice than just buying a cheaper body and 3 good primes.
 
Agreed , I don`t think it`s sloppy to crop at all.
Just another way of achieving the shot you want.
After all frame lines are far from precise so you start of with a sloppy composition.
Cropping just tightens it up surely.

This new Q looks to be the perfect general /travel camera
 
Agreed , I don`t think it`s sloppy to crop at all.
Just another way of achieving the shot you want.
After all frame lines are far from precise so you start of with a sloppy composition.
Cropping just tightens it up surely.

This new Q looks to be the perfect general /travel camera

Why would the Q’s framelines not be precise?
 
The Ricoh GR has the option of live view 28/35/47 cropping and you can program a button dedicated to it. It's very convenient.

It's APS-C, but it does exist. Good in a pinch but I wouldn't buy any camera, particlarly one as pricey as the Q if I intended to use it in crop mode most of the time.

You are far better off with an M and the lens you want.

It does look like a nice package if you want 28mm and autofocus.

Furthermore, we're not talking about cropping after the fact, we're talking about a camera that either presents a live view of the cropped size, or framelines at the cropped size. That's not possible with "any camera,"
 
Agreed... not to mention it’s a sloppy way to photograph in most cases.

I disagree that it's sloppy ... Not every situation can be captured full frame unless you have a bearer with a dozen lenses following you around at all times. The "always shoot full frame" meme is fun as an exercise now and then, can be a signature mark of your photography, but says nothing about being sloppy or careless.

The point of it with the Q/Q2 is that you can set the viewfinder to allow you to frame, create jpegs with that framing, and the DNGs will be auto-cropped to those dimensions but adjustable in image processing when you're rendering the photograph.

A Q2 with an accessory 1.5x front element teleconverter could be a lovely "one camera, one lens" for a lot of my photography. It's got enough pixels to make FoV adjustment by cropping easily doable, is a nice size, and the addition of just a little more reach would fulfill what I do 95% of the time when shooting.

I just have so many cameras and options already I find it a little hard to justify spending money for one. 🙂

G
 
I indicated below that I would post some shots from my new Leica Q (the original one) for those interested to see how that generation of Q performs. I have not had time yet to use the camera seriously but have taken a few shots while out at dinner in a restaurant and at home in my lounge room. In each case the images have been shot with available light in what was, again in each case, pretty "ordinary" light at best.

The one deficit that is potentially (I will know more as I gain experience) a little disappointing is what seems to be a relative lack of "overhead" to pull back blown highlights even though all my shots are DNG. Not sure what is going on here other than admittedly particularly difficult and contrary lighting in a couple of the images. The RAW files produced by the Q are pretty large and hence not compressed so I should have expected there to be lots of data still there to be revealed. It may be that I shot without any compensation dialed in whereas usually I like to shoot at least half stop under to reduce / avoid blown highlights and to provide more scope to correct blown highlights. It's just that the blown highlights here were more blown than I expected. Never the less other aspects of the image are very good and much as I hoped and expected. (And maybe there is better software than Lightroom for processing DNG files though in general I have found Lightroom to be excellent for pulling data out of blown highlights and too dark shadows).

The processing of these images is minimal incidentally, - a little tonal adjustment and a very minor touch of sharpening - Q files seem not to need much in any event and that is a Godsent as I usually have to work more extensively on images from other cameras to get a final image I am happy to run with. )

A shot at dinner (difficult lighting admittedly) which shows the above and the sharpness and clarity of the lens which offsets that issue by other virtues. If anything the lens is almost too sharp for flattering portraits as skin pores and every skin defect show up clearly when viewed at full resolution. Still I won't complain. It is nice to have a lens which is almost unfailingly this sharp. (Not sure why wifey is beginning to poke her tongue out. I suspect she is talking. What, her talk? That's unusual -hahahahahahaha)

mss3Ak9.jpg


Another shot in the dark confines of the tapas bar. The ambient lighting was considerably darker than shown here - the out of the camera shot required some brightening to display well here. The camera locked onto the background (my bad - not the camera's fault and notwithstanding the dark conditions, AF lock was near instantaneous). But the effectiveness of the image stabilization is made perfectly apparent by the blur of the moving subject against the very sharp image of the writing on the rear wall.

Hi Peter,

Your images came out very nice. I know what you meant by not getting 100% what you expected from a new camera to you. I would also take photos in less challenging lights to see how the Q does there, and then I would move to the more difficult scenes to better understand the Q and figure out how to optimize settings so that you get what you have been used to get, or maybe get something new.
 
I disagree that it's sloppy ... Not every situation can be captured full frame unless you have a bearer with a dozen lenses following you around at all times. The "always shoot full frame" meme is fun as an exercise now and then, can be a signature mark of your photography, but says nothing about being sloppy or careless.

The point of it with the Q/Q2 is that you can set the viewfinder to allow you to frame, create jpegs with that framing, and the DNGs will be auto-cropped to those dimensions but adjustable in image processing when you're rendering the photograph.

A Q2 with an accessory 1.5x front element teleconverter could be a lovely "one camera, one lens" for a lot of my photography. It's got enough pixels to make FoV adjustment by cropping easily doable, is a nice size, and the addition of just a little more reach would fulfill what I do 95% of the time when shooting.

I just have so many cameras and options already I find it a little hard to justify spending money for one. 🙂

G

Let me clarify... sloppy when people tend to crop to save bad composition, not when photographing with the crop in mind.
 
It doesn't really matter if they are precise are not since you end up with the full 28mm image and can crop anyway you want.

Ok two things... framelines on a mirrorless should be as accurate as a SLR since you are viewing through the lens with the added benefit of seeing your exposure as well. Secondly, the Q shows you the accurate framelines for 35, 50, etc and gives you the resulting crop.
 
Back
Top Bottom