The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The Leica Q2

JeRuFo

Active member
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 :cool:
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.)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
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 :cool:
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.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
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.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
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...
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
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.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
"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."
 

Shashin

Well-known member
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.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
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.
 

algrove

Well-known member
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.
 
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
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
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
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
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.
 

MCTuomey

New member
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.
 

algrove

Well-known member
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:

MCTuomey

New member
"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!]
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
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.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
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. :D

G
 

algrove

Well-known member
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.
 
Top