Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 115

Thread: The Leica Q2

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    When did 1.7 lenses become a Summilux?

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    When did 1.7 lenses become a Summilux?
    Leica has been fudging lately. See also the 90mm f1.5 Summilux. Instead of f1.4, now Summilux means anything less than f2.0. Diluting the mark.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    When did 1.7 lenses become a Summilux?
    When they introduced the original Q.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    "Diluting the mark" is an absurd comment. Pointless implied bashing...

    A lens is a Summilux, always has been a Summilux, when Leica decides it's their best offering for the most light at the focal length. Period. The lens names are not inviolably tied to a specific maximum lens opening, and never have been. Certain conventions were followed for while, but there were always exceptions. Like Summarons that were f/3.5 to f/5.6, Elmars from f/2.8 to f/4.5, Hektors from f/4 to f/6.3, etc.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    A lens is a Summilux, always has been a Summilux, when Leica decides it's their best offering for the most light at the focal length. Period. The lens names are not inviolably tied to a specific maximum lens opening, and never have been.
    So the 28mm f1.7 Summilux is the best 28mm lens Leica offers for the most light at the focal length. Is it better than the 28mm f1.4 Summilux for the most light at the focal length? Can you name another Summilux that isn't f1.4 other than the upcoming 90mm f1.5 Summilux?

  6. #56
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: The Leica Q2

    How many other Summiluxes have a macro mode? It's an amazing lens, whatever it's called.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #57
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    806
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Thank you for the review, Jono. It's a tempting camera, possibly the best value Leica. If they made a 50mm version I would be very tempted.
    Agreed, Jorgen. Maybe a Q2S with native 50mm lens and crop factor for 75 & 90. That's where my shooting is now. M8.2 w/50 & M9-P w/90.
    I think Leica did an excellent work with this camera. And an M with 47mp would probably clear out the moths from the bank account.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #58
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,782
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrew View Post
    And an M with 47mp would probably clear out the moths from the bank account.
    Well, I cannot help myself but manually focusing any M with 47MP via even the best RF system seems to be a nightmare. But maybe Leica has up some more (optical) tricks up their sleeves

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    Can you name another Summilux that isn't f1.4 other than the upcoming 90mm f1.5 Summilux?
    Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Leica couldn't win in naming the lens of the q. If it didn't have a name it would be strange and people would ask if it was an adapted existing lens. If they made up a new name for an adapted existing design they would have been blamed for taking credit for a simple rebrand and in doing it this way it is apparently not fitting in the summilux line (of 6 lenses, if I'm not mistaken).
    Most likely they wanted to give the Q a summilux lens all along, but they found a 1.4 version too big for the design and they decided to give the lenses a slightly smaller diameter.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Well, I cannot help myself but manually focusing any M with 47MP via even the best RF system seems to be a nightmare. But maybe Leica has up some more (optical) tricks up their sleeves
    I wouldn't be surprised if the rangefinder was replaced with an EVF on the next M and they would bring out a separate version with a rangefinder for the purists (can't be that expensive to them to keep using it, the R&D needed must be almost zero.)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #62
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Well, I cannot help myself but manually focusing any M with 47MP via even the best RF system seems to be a nightmare. But maybe Leica has up some more (optical) tricks up their sleeves
    Well, pleasing their customers that pixel peep would be the problem, but the current rangefinder would actually work fine. Focus tolerance is not actually a resolution problem. If the displayed image looks sharp in a 24MP file, it will look sharp at 47 MP.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by JeRuFo View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if the rangefinder was replaced with an EVF on the next M and they would bring out a separate version with a rangefinder for the purists (can't be that expensive to them to keep using it, the R&D needed must be almost zero.)
    Retooling the production line would be at least a million dollar investment.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by JeRuFo View Post
    Leica couldn't win in naming the lens of the q. If it didn't have a name it would be strange and people would ask if it was an adapted existing lens. If they made up a new name for an adapted existing design they would have been blamed for taking credit for a simple rebrand and in doing it this way it is apparently not fitting in the summilux line (of 6 lenses, if I'm not mistaken).
    Most likely they wanted to give the Q a summilux lens all along, but they found a 1.4 version too big for the design and they decided to give the lenses a slightly smaller diameter.
    Or just marketing hype to jack prices...

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Well, pleasing their customers that pixel peep would be the problem, but the current rangefinder would actually work fine. Focus tolerance is not actually a resolution problem. If the displayed image looks sharp in a 24MP file, it will look sharp at 47 MP.
    24mp being more limited by cropping and print size of course. Also, more mp's requires better technique too. Errors are obviously more pronounced at 47mp.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    "Diluting the mark" is an absurd comment. Pointless implied bashing...

    A lens is a Summilux, always has been a Summilux, when Leica decides it's their best offering for the most light at the focal length. Period. The lens names are not inviolably tied to a specific maximum lens opening, and never have been. Certain conventions were followed for while, but there were always exceptions. Like Summarons that were f/3.5 to f/5.6, Elmars from f/2.8 to f/4.5, Hektors from f/4 to f/6.3, etc.

    G

    From Thorsten Overgaard "Summilux = Refers to the maximum lens aperture - here f1.4 , "-lux" added for "light" (ie. the enhanced light gathering abilities). In Leica terminology a Summilux is always a f/1.4 lens and a Summicron is a f/2.0 lens."

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    24mp being more limited by cropping and print size of course. Also, more mp's requires better technique too. Errors are obviously more pronounced at 47mp.
    I have made 60" prints from 24MP files on 42" roll paper, so I am unsure at what point print size is a factor. While "errors" are more detectable at a 100% monitor view, we don't view final prints that way--a 24mp print is viewed at the same distance as a 47mp one. This is why shooting the Q in crop modes doesn't actually make it more difficult to focus beyond the differences in magnification/angle of view.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    From Thorsten Overgaard "Summilux = Refers to the maximum lens aperture - here f1.4 , "-lux" added for "light" (ie. the enhanced light gathering abilities). In Leica terminology a Summilux is always a f/1.4 lens and a Summicron is a f/2.0 lens."
    I guess Leica has updated their definition of Summilux. Just like Noctilux does not specify a specific aperture (it could be anywhere between F/0.95 to f/1.2), Summilux now has a the range of f/1.4 to f/1.7.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    From Thorsten Overgaard "Summilux = Refers to the maximum lens aperture - here f1.4 , "-lux" added for "light" (ie. the enhanced light gathering abilities). In Leica terminology a Summilux is always a f/1.4 lens and a Summicron is a f/2.0 lens."
    Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Yeah, I’d want atleast 18mp with the teleconveter attached giving you between a 50-75 fov. Which is why it would probably have to be a custom Leica tele made just for that camera. I’m obviously wanting it for the original Q. Not the Q2
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    So the 28mm f1.7 Summilux is the best 28mm lens Leica offers for the most light at the focal length. Is it better than the 28mm f1.4 Summilux for the most light at the focal length? Can you name another Summilux that isn't f1.4 other than the upcoming 90mm f1.5 Summilux?
    That's kind of another absurd pair of questions. You can answer it for yourself. Hint: the Q/Q2 cameras are not M-mount cameras, and there are Summilux lenses in different camera/lens lines with the same focal lengths.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I have made 60" prints from 24MP files on 42" roll paper, so I am unsure at what point print size is a factor. While "errors" are more detectable at a 100% monitor view, we don't view final prints that way--a 24mp print is viewed at the same distance as a 47mp one. This is why shooting the Q in crop modes doesn't actually make it more difficult to focus beyond the differences in magnification/angle of view.
    If you change one you affect the other values such as pixel dimension, resolution and size. Having more data in the file at native print sizes will always be a better starting point. Print quality is obviously subjective with viewing distance and ppi, while some use high mp ILC's for the ability to crop when using various prime/zoom lenses and still have enough resolution. Having a cropped, lower resolution image with a fixed lens doesn't satisfy the needs of some of the agencies I work with. And yes, many look at images at 100% monitor view. We wouldn't have planned obsolescence if they didn't.

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Some folks look at new gear and say what it can't do. Other folks look at new gear and say what they can do with it. Like the Q when it was introduced, the Q2 seems to encourage a lot of the former on the internet. In any case, sales were/are sufficient for Leica to support the model. All good for me, I like my Q a lot and would buy the Q2 in a heartbeat if I needed a replacement.

    Enjoyed the review, Jono, and as always your lovely images.
    --Mike

    My Flickr
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    First shoot today
    I found the files were 88mb in size and the Q1 files were 44mb. Makes sense.

    Added my first Q2 image on thread "Fun with the Leica Q2".
    Last edited by algrove; 22nd March 2019 at 06:25.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    456
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    "Diluting the mark" is an absurd comment. Pointless implied bashing...

    A lens is a Summilux, always has been a Summilux, when Leica decides it's their best offering for the most light at the focal length. Period. The lens names are not inviolably tied to a specific maximum lens opening, and never have been. Certain conventions were followed for while, but there were always exceptions. Like Summarons that were f/3.5 to f/5.6, Elmars from f/2.8 to f/4.5, Hektors from f/4 to f/6.3, etc.

    G
    Yes, agree. To silence the bashing, perhaps we need to neologize. Since f/1.7 is half-way arithmetically between f/1.4 and f/2.0, why not refer to the Q's lens as a Semi-Lux! [woof!]
    --Mike

    My Flickr
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    First shoot today
    I found the files were 88mb in size and the Q1 files were 44mb. Makes sense.

    Added my first Q2 image on thread "Fun with the Leica Q2".
    You can losslessly compress the DNGs either with Adobe DNG Converter or by using Lightroom's option "Metadata -> Update DNG Preview & Metadata".
    Losslessly compressed Q2's raw files are about 50Mb.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Does the Leica Q2 have the same sensor as the new Lumix S1r?

  28. #78
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,606
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    Does the Leica Q2 have the same sensor as the new Lumix S1r?
    It’s almost guaranteed that it does with a Leica Maestro Image Processor incorporates instead of a Panasonic Venus one.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Made curious by the earlier conversation in this thread, I poked about on Ebay and found a mint-appearing pair of Olympus front-element teleconverters (tele TCON-14b and wide WCON-08b) being sold for the grand total of $30. Wot da heck? I remember buying these back when they were current equipment for the ES-1/ES-2 cameras and they cost me a LOT more than that then. Typical excellent Olympus build and optical quality...

    I bought them. Now all I need is a 49mm to 62mm step up ring ... and a Q2 ... to experiment with.

    G

  30. #80
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    You can losslessly compress the DNGs either with Adobe DNG Converter or by using Lightroom's option "Metadata -> Update DNG Preview & Metadata".
    Losslessly compressed Q2's raw files are about 50Mb.
    I compress nothing. Heck Toshiba 14TB HDD cost but $480 now.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by jdphoto View Post
    Does the Leica Q2 have the same sensor as the new Lumix S1r?
    RawDigger shows that Q2 and S1r sensors have a different number of native pixels. LR applies in both cases the built-in profile and reduces them slightly to the same size.
    I suspect that they have different sensors.

  32. #82
    Senior Member drunkenspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    I compress nothing. Heck Toshiba 14TB HDD cost but $480 now.
    Ditto.

  33. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenspyder View Post
    Ditto.
    And what is anybody going to do with 14TB of images. They can't all be keepers. After 45 years I can put my keepers, meaning photos that I have printed, on an SD card.

  34. #84
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    I compress nothing. Heck Toshiba 14TB HDD cost but $480 now.
    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenspyder View Post
    Ditto.
    Just because you can buy a lot of space doesn't mean you should waste it.

    Losslessly compressed DNG changes nothing other than reducing the amount of storage you are consuming. It's a sensible thing to do. The DNG standard lossless compression is very tight, but it's generally not implemented in camera because the compression algorithm requires more computing power than in camera processors have to spare, on average. Any desktop or tablet computer... it's a piece of cake these days.

    I use it with all my out of camera uncompressed DNG files. Never a single problem.

    G

  35. #85
    Senior Member drunkenspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    And what is anybody going to do with 14TB of images. They can't all be keepers. After 45 years I can put my keepers, meaning photos that I have printed, on an SD card.
    I could also probably put all my keepers on a card, or at least a jump drive. In fact, I know I could, because I don't have that many! But I don't throw everything else away. Funny, because just this morning I was explaining to my partner why I don't throw any image away, including black frames, white frames, and LCCs. I keep it all, because storage is cheap, which I believe was part of Al's point, and to which I would add: images are not.

    I expend great effort to go and get my images. I've had the experience in the field of trying to swap backups between an underspec'ed laptop and external cards & drives which led me to mistakenly delete images for which I had no backup, in order to make room on a drive. So, I will never ever again in my life lack for storage space. Once bitten, ten times shy.

    I have two Areca RAID arrays attached to my primary workstation at home. Each is outfitted with eight 10tb drives, formatted RAID-10, each with a hot spare. I have two Synology NAS rack units, one with 16 bays, and one with 8. I also back up to two separate off-site backup services. I don't do all this only for photos. I have a family that depends on reliable storage and backup, music and video service distribution throughout the house, etc. My DSD audio files are typically bigger than 2gb, my 4k video ones are often larger than 80gb. Gotta put them somewhere. To my family, their backed up photos are just as precious as my "keepers." And some of my all-time favorites are little snapshots from early digicams, scans of old photos, etc., none of which are print candidates, but are beyond priceless to me. So, I buy the most storage I can reasonably afford, deploy it in the most stable and highest speed way I know how. And I rest easy at night. If my house burns down, I still have it all. if my laptop is stolen, or gets destroyed traveling, I still have it all. When on the road, I can reach my network and access any image I want to work on.

    If I only need to show or ship or travel with some print-worthy images somewhere, a jump drive or card is perfect. But that is the smallest piece of why data storage matters to me.

  36. #86
    Senior Member drunkenspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Just because you can buy a lot of space doesn't mean you should waste it.

    Losslessly compressed DNG changes nothing other than reducing the amount of storage you are consuming. It's a sensible thing to do. The DNG standard lossless compression is very tight, but it's generally not implemented in camera because the compression algorithm requires more computing power than in camera processors have to spare, on average. Any desktop or tablet computer... it's a piece of cake these days.

    I use it with all my out of camera uncompressed DNG files. Never a single problem.

    G
    To each their own. I am not advocating "wasting space." And while I can't speak for Al, as a C1 user, I have zero reason to add a DNG conversion step into my workflow, because I am lazy at heart. And space is cheap. I am not even sure what it means to describe it as "wasted." If one has a 4tb HD, and one uses 2tb of it, how is it a "waste" to not compress files? if one has a 2tb drive, and is constantly deleting files in order to upgrade the OS, or archiving files to make room for others, one really needs a larger drive or a different storage architecture, though DNG might help delay the inevitable. I can understand the view that a large HD also might permit one to adopt sloppy preservation habits, but that's a different risk. So, I guess I don't see the "wasted space" point of view. But as I said, to each their own. I do understand the DNG-as-archival-standard point off view. That one makes plenty of sense, and I could also see the DNG-as-common-format point of view for people who use multiple platforms.

  37. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Wasting space is not not compressing your files, it is keeping all your rejects.

  38. #88
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
    Wasting space is not not compressing your files, it is keeping all your rejects.
    I delete the rejects too.

    But there are many photos that are not 'rejects' but that I haven't chosen to render just yet. Out of a given session and say 50 good exposures, I usually choose to render about 8 or 10 of them and save the rest for another time. Sometimes just one gets rendered for many months or many years afterwards.

    What I consider a reject may be different from what you consider a reject, of course. But I run the DNG compression to save on storage space regardless of what I choose to save. That seems sensible to me.

    G

  39. #89
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenspyder View Post
    To each their own. I am not advocating "wasting space." And while I can't speak for Al, as a C1 user, I have zero reason to add a DNG conversion step into my workflow, because I am lazy at heart. And space is cheap. I am not even sure what it means to describe it as "wasted." If one has a 4tb HD, and one uses 2tb of it, how is it a "waste" to not compress files? if one has a 2tb drive, and is constantly deleting files in order to upgrade the OS, or archiving files to make room for others, one really needs a larger drive or a different storage architecture, though DNG might help delay the inevitable. I can understand the view that a large HD also might permit one to adopt sloppy preservation habits, but that's a different risk. So, I guess I don't see the "wasted space" point of view. But as I said, to each their own. I do understand the DNG-as-archival-standard point off view. That one makes plenty of sense, and I could also see the DNG-as-common-format point of view for people who use multiple platforms.
    Presuming that C1 supports DNG files, it takes very little effort to use DNG Converter and batch convert all the uncompressed DNGs to compressed DNGs before adding them into C1. If the file size drops by half, it means that you have that much longer to go before you need to clear space on your working or archive storage drives, that's all, and that backups go faster as well.

    Wasting space in the context of saying "I don't compress the files because I can easily afford a bigger storage drive and don't want to take the time" is the same kind of waste as saying "I'll drive a big gas guzzling car because gasoline is cheap enough that I don't care." I find that is unacceptable from a philosophical standpoint and strive not to participate in waste of that sort, that's all.

    G

  40. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Presuming that C1 supports DNG files, it takes very little effort to use DNG Converter and batch convert all the uncompressed DNGs to compressed DNGs before adding them into C1. If the file size drops by half, it means that you have that much longer to go before you need to clear space on your working or archive storage drives, that's all, and that backups go faster as well.

    Wasting space in the context of saying "I don't compress the files because I can easily afford a bigger storage drive and don't want to take the time" is the same kind of waste as saying "I'll drive a big gas guzzling car because gasoline is cheap enough that I don't care." I find that is unacceptable from a philosophical standpoint and strive not to participate in waste of that sort, that's all.

    G
    With LR you can also compress DNG files in place, after import.
    The only issue could be that some competitions require unaltered raw files.

  41. #91
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    With LR you can also compress DNG files in place, after import.
    The only issue could be that some competitions require unaltered raw files.
    Sure, but he was saying he was a c1 user.

    I would never submit to a competition that required my raw files. What would be the point of that? I don't submit work to forensic or documentarian/journalistic competitions. I submit work to fine arts photography exhibition and competition occasionally... what negative I start with is of no importance; it's the final image that matters—nothing else.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #92
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    4,782
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Sure, but he was saying he was a c1 user.

    I would never submit to a competition that required my raw files. What would be the point of that? I don't submit work to forensic or documentarian/journalistic competitions. I submit work to fine arts photography exhibition and competition occasionally... what negative I start with is of no importance; it's the final image that matters—nothing else.

    G
    Could not have said it better

    Peter
    Life is an ever changing journey
    http://photography.tomsu.eu/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_...tography/sets/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #93
    Senior Member drunkenspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    With LR you can also compress DNG files in place, after import.
    The only issue could be that some competitions require unaltered raw files.
    As another wrote, I cannot imagine giving over my RAW files to anyone else. But that’s my choice, and in any event, since I am not a LR user, its in-flow ability to convert to DNG—which could be quite an advantage to anyone who wants to do this—does me no good. While some might see the conversion process as minimal effort, it’s more than zero, and as I said, I am lazy, and even more than that, simply don’t need to add another step. Since I archive every image anyway, and have the space, the DNG conversion process affords me no real advantage other than the “best bet as an archive format” argument I mentioned earlier. I might still go that way at some point in the future. But for now, it would afford me no workflow advantage.

  44. #94
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenspyder View Post
    As another wrote, I cannot imagine giving over my RAW files to anyone else. But that’s my choice, and in any event, since I am not a LR user, its in-flow ability to convert to DNG—which could be quite an advantage to anyone who wants to do this—does me no good. While some might see the conversion process as minimal effort, it’s more than zero, and as I said, I am lazy, and even more than that, simply don’t need to add another step. Since I archive every image anyway, and have the space, the DNG conversion process affords me no real advantage other than the “best bet as an archive format” argument I mentioned earlier. I might still go that way at some point in the future. But for now, it would afford me no workflow advantage.
    For those using Lightroom, at least, the compressed DNG files load faster. Particularly on relatively limited resource systems, like laptops.

    G

  45. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Sure, but he was saying he was a c1 user.

    I would never submit to a competition that required my raw files. What would be the point of that? I don't submit work to forensic or documentarian/journalistic competitions. I submit work to fine arts photography exhibition and competition occasionally... what negative I start with is of no importance; it's the final image that matters—nothing else.

    G
    Sure, my comment does not apply to you.
    There may be other forum readers who want to submit their images to top competitions like World Press Photo or Wildlife Photographer of the Year. For those, they must keep the originals in the unlikely case that their images get selected. I think a Leica Q2 is well suited for as a tool for the mentioned competitions.

    Many photographers do not like competitions at all or want to do whatever they think is right for their image. Nothing wrong with that either, I am not advocating for competitions.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #96
    Senior Member drunkenspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    For those using Lightroom, at least, the compressed DNG files load faster. Particularly on relatively limited resource systems, like laptops.

    G
    No doubt. There are indeed plenty of advantages for those using LR, as this article well summarizes. Not everyone fits that box.

  47. #97
    Senior Member drunkenspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Presuming that C1 supports DNG files, it takes very little effort to use DNG Converter and batch convert all the uncompressed DNGs to compressed DNGs before adding them into C1. If the file size drops by half, it means that you have that much longer to go before you need to clear space on your working or archive storage drives, that's all, and that backups go faster as well.

    Wasting space in the context of saying "I don't compress the files because I can easily afford a bigger storage drive and don't want to take the time" is the same kind of waste as saying "I'll drive a big gas guzzling car because gasoline is cheap enough that I don't care." I find that is unacceptable from a philosophical standpoint and strive not to participate in waste of that sort, that's all.

    G
    Godfrey:

    I am sorry you find that offensive, but you really took a leap there and made it a bit personal. While I would prefer to presume good intent here, you make it difficult with your holier-than-thou implicit accusation. You only know a little about me, so instead you choose to presume much to mount your soapbox.Your analogy is actually very weak; a larger, more electrically efficient hard drive array is hardly the same thing as driving a gas guzzling car to do the same thing that one could do with a more efficient vehicle assuming roughly equivalent payloads; if anything, it’s more likely the inverse, and as a software/hardware person, you may already know that.

    Further, your assumption about my wasteful attitude couldn’t be more incorrect; for one thing, while I realize fossil fuels here in the States are cheap in the abstract, especially for their energy capacity, I don’t find the cash it takes to buy them cheap at all and so I do not take gasoline profligacy lightly. Like you, I am retired, a legacy of the 50s, and like you (but maybe not) have finite resources I need to steward for the rest of my life. My entire home is run on solar (not net-metering). I pick appliances and computer/network components based on efficiency. I buy more storage space than I need at the primary stage so I can deploy it for backup purposes. I have had more than one CIO/CTO tell me that larger drives are more efficient, and to buy the largest I could afford. I realize one could make an argument that the larger hard drives themselves represent a manufacturing expenditure somewhere that marginally consumes more resources, but I doubt it can be parsed between smaller and larger drives in a home.

    I do all these things because they actually save me TCO money; that they may be comparatively good things to do for the environment is a benefit, but not the first reason. I will actually get to a net gain on my solar investment in the next year or two, and since I live in the boonies, I am not contributing much to solar panel heating.

    As for how I am willing to spend my time, thank goodness I still get to decide how to do that and am not subject to someone else’s morality standards. As do you!

    If I have misread the pointedness of your philosophical comments, I hope you will forgive me. But your disdain was apparent and did not leave much doubt.

    P.S. I decided to run a test on NEF and IIQ RAW files. I ran it on my iMac Pro; it’s an 18-core machine and I used its internal 4tb drive for the test. On average, without an embedded original RAW file, NEF files from the Z7 were reduced by 16%. Not trivial but hardly “by half.” IIQ files were reduced by about 8% without embedding, not trivial but not very significant. No surprise but IIQ files converted with embedding blossomed in size by over 100%. But if I choose to archive in DNG in the future, that is probably what I would do. It took my iMac just over 10 minutes with embedding, 9 minutes without, to convert a folder of 463 IIQ files ranging from about 100mb to 130mb each. Not a huge time investment, but also not zero. And again it’s my choice whether to use my time that way.

    Greg
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #98
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    8,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    You're caught up in the analogy rather than the point, and the specifics of what you do are really not my business or concern. I'm speaking of my point of view, the analogy I drew is how I see it. Whether you hold the same point of view or not, well, that's up to you. I dislike wasteful practices, and to me the ability to buy massive storage inexpensively and then filling it up more than it ought to be is simply wasteful.

    We're talking about Q2 DNG files here, not IIQ (whatever those are) or NEF files. The Q2 makes uncompressed DNG files that are approximately 88Mbytes in size. While I don't have a Q2 myself to test the compression with, I tested with M-D and CL files. The M-D produces lossless compressed DNG files, the CL produces uncompressed DNG files. Running 100 of each of them through the DNG Converter to apply DNG lossless compression, as expected the storage required for the M-D files was reduced by 200 Mbytes, likely not enough gain to warrant the time to convert, but the storage for the CL files was reduced by 2 Gbyte (7.2 g pre-compression, 5.2 g post-compression) ... That's certainly worth the effort.

    In my opinion, of course.

    I suspect the Q2 files would see a compression on the same order as the CL files in this example. You may count it as irrelevant to your needs, but that doesn't address the notion I'm espousing: that just because you have access to lots of cheap space doesn't justify treating it as an unlimited resource.

    G

    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenspyder View Post
    Godfrey:

    I am sorry you find that offensive, but you really took a leap there and made it a bit personal. While I would prefer to presume good intent here, you make it difficult with your holier-than-thou implicit accusation. You only know a little about me, so instead you choose to presume much to mount your soapbox.Your analogy is actually very weak; a larger, more electrically efficient hard drive array is hardly the same thing as driving a gas guzzling car to do the same thing that one could do with a more efficient vehicle assuming roughly equivalent payloads; if anything, it’s more likely the inverse, and as a software/hardware person, you may already know that.

    Further, your assumption about my wasteful attitude couldn’t be more incorrect; for one thing, while I realize fossil fuels here in the States are cheap in the abstract, especially for their energy capacity, I don’t find the cash it takes to buy them cheap at all and so I do not take gasoline profligacy lightly. Like you, I am retired, a legacy of the 50s, and like you (but maybe not) have finite resources I need to steward for the rest of my life. My entire home is run on solar (not net-metering). I pick appliances and computer/network components based on efficiency. I buy more storage space than I need at the primary stage so I can deploy it for backup purposes. I have had more than one CIO/CTO tell me that larger drives are more efficient, and to buy the largest I could afford. I realize one could make an argument that the larger hard drives themselves represent a manufacturing expenditure somewhere that marginally consumes more resources, but I doubt it can be parsed between smaller and larger drives in a home.

    I do all these things because they actually save me TCO money; that they may be comparatively good things to do for the environment is a benefit, but not the first reason. I will actually get to a net gain on my solar investment in the next year or two, and since I live in the boonies, I am not contributing much to solar panel heating.

    As for how I am willing to spend my time, thank goodness I still get to decide how to do that and am not subject to someone else’s morality standards. As do you!

    If I have misread the pointedness of your philosophical comments, I hope you will forgive me. But your disdain was apparent and did not leave much doubt.

    P.S. I decided to run a test on NEF and IIQ RAW files. I ran it on my iMac Pro; it’s an 18-core machine and I used its internal 4tb drive for the test. On average, without an embedded original RAW file, NEF files from the Z7 were reduced by 16%. Not trivial but hardly “by half.” IIQ files were reduced by about 8% without embedding, not trivial but not very significant. No surprise but IIQ files converted with embedding blossomed in size by over 100%. But if I choose to archive in DNG in the future, that is probably what I would do. It took my iMac just over 10 minutes with embedding, 9 minutes without, to convert a folder of 463 IIQ files ranging from about 100mb to 130mb each. Not a huge time investment, but also not zero. And again it’s my choice whether to use my time that way.

    Greg

  49. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    I have a 4TB hard drive with about 1.5TB currently filled. I suppose I could compress the files. The choice one way or another doesn't seem that much like a moral dilemma to me.

  50. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Leica Q2

    Quote Originally Posted by drunkenspyder View Post
    Godfrey:

    I am sorry you find that offensive, but you really took a leap there and made it a bit personal. While I would prefer to presume good intent here, you make it difficult with your holier-than-thou implicit accusation. You only know a little about me, so instead you choose to presume much to mount your soapbox.Your analogy is actually very weak; a larger, more electrically efficient hard drive array is hardly the same thing as driving a gas guzzling car to do the same thing that one could do with a more efficient vehicle assuming roughly equivalent payloads; if anything, it’s more likely the inverse, and as a software/hardware person, you may already know that.

    Further, your assumption about my wasteful attitude couldn’t be more incorrect; for one thing, while I realize fossil fuels here in the States are cheap in the abstract, especially for their energy capacity, I don’t find the cash it takes to buy them cheap at all and so I do not take gasoline profligacy lightly. Like you, I am retired, a legacy of the 50s, and like you (but maybe not) have finite resources I need to steward for the rest of my life. My entire home is run on solar (not net-metering). I pick appliances and computer/network components based on efficiency. I buy more storage space than I need at the primary stage so I can deploy it for backup purposes. I have had more than one CIO/CTO tell me that larger drives are more efficient, and to buy the largest I could afford. I realize one could make an argument that the larger hard drives themselves represent a manufacturing expenditure somewhere that marginally consumes more resources, but I doubt it can be parsed between smaller and larger drives in a home.

    I do all these things because they actually save me TCO money; that they may be comparatively good things to do for the environment is a benefit, but not the first reason. I will actually get to a net gain on my solar investment in the next year or two, and since I live in the boonies, I am not contributing much to solar panel heating.

    As for how I am willing to spend my time, thank goodness I still get to decide how to do that and am not subject to someone else’s morality standards. As do you!

    If I have misread the pointedness of your philosophical comments, I hope you will forgive me. But your disdain was apparent and did not leave much doubt.

    P.S. I decided to run a test on NEF and IIQ RAW files. I ran it on my iMac Pro; it’s an 18-core machine and I used its internal 4tb drive for the test. On average, without an embedded original RAW file, NEF files from the Z7 were reduced by 16%. Not trivial but hardly “by half.” IIQ files were reduced by about 8% without embedding, not trivial but not very significant. No surprise but IIQ files converted with embedding blossomed in size by over 100%. But if I choose to archive in DNG in the future, that is probably what I would do. It took my iMac just over 10 minutes with embedding, 9 minutes without, to convert a folder of 463 IIQ files ranging from about 100mb to 130mb each. Not a huge time investment, but also not zero. And again it’s my choice whether to use my time that way.

    Greg
    Just don't say film is harder than digital...
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •