Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Q / T / X Series

Leica Q / T / X Series For the Leica Q, T, X series digital cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 04-27-2016   #41
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 174
I think that the Leica Q is a very good camera and has excellent performance. It's all about using it in the best manner. I don't understand the rush to condemn the Leica Q as a "poor performer". The same thing is said of the M240, the M9, etc. I think that these judgments are unwarranted because practically all digital cameras suffer from the same deficiencies to one degree or another. To say that the Leica digital cameras are poor performers compared to other cheap cameras is both incorrect and unfair. Leica cameras use Leica lenses and other very high quality lenses. Their price is higher because it's an expensive unique brand and they make high quality products.

The comparable cameras by other manufacturers are quite expensive as well and have their own shortcomings. If one is to judge the output of the Leica Q, one might look not only at poor samples but at good samples as well. Look at Ming Thein's images taken with the Q, or Thorsten von Overgaard's or any number of other well known and respected photographers. Then you can pick them apart and see all the defects and deficiencies of the camera. Also, one can read the enthusiastic praise they pour on the camera. Are they wrong? Are they just trying to promote a bad product? Sure, you can always find a number of other people who will hate and denigrate the camera. They all have an ax to grind as well. What I've noticed is that there is always a good number of people who seem to hate the Leica brand and always put it down. I can guess their motivation but it makes no difference. What matters is one's choice or predilection. I wanted the Leica M240 and got one. Then it occurs to me to want a Leica Q, so I'm getting one. Those of you who hate it are in the wonderful position of not having one, so we are all fine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2016   #42
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
you aren't the only one. I wouldn't even go to 3200. The details are mushy and oversharpened.
not to jump on the bandwagon but those images remind me of the first time i took the m8 for a spin.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2016   #43
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manuel Patino View Post
I think that the Leica Q is a very good camera and has excellent performance. It's all about using it in the best manner. I don't understand the rush to condemn the Leica Q as a "poor performer". The same thing is said of the M240, the M9, etc. I think that these judgments are unwarranted because practically all digital cameras suffer from the same deficiencies to one degree or another. To say that the Leica digital cameras are poor performers compared to other cheap cameras is both incorrect and unfair. Leica cameras use Leica lenses and other very high quality lenses. Their price is higher because it's an expensive unique brand and they make high quality products.

The comparable cameras by other manufacturers are quite expensive as well and have their own shortcomings. If one is to judge the output of the Leica Q, one might look not only at poor samples but at good samples as well. Look at Ming Thein's images taken with the Q, or Thorsten von Overgaard's or any number of other well known and respected photographers. Then you can pick them apart and see all the defects and deficiencies of the camera. Also, one can read the enthusiastic praise they pour on the camera. Are they wrong? Are they just trying to promote a bad product? Sure, you can always find a number of other people who will hate and denigrate the camera. They all have an ax to grind as well. What I've noticed is that there is always a good number of people who seem to hate the Leica brand and always put it down. I can guess their motivation but it makes no difference. What matters is one's choice or predilection. I wanted the Leica M240 and got one. Then it occurs to me to want a Leica Q, so I'm getting one. Those of you who hate it are in the wonderful position of not having one, so we are all fine.
some of us here have shot digital leica products extensively. on the streets, on the job and in the back yard with the kids. this isn't about anything more than identifying what we see in the files.

i personally don't look to Overgaard or Ming Thein to form my opinions.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #44
Manuel Patino
Registered User
 
Manuel Patino is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
some of us here have shot digital leica products extensively. on the streets, on the job and in the back yard with the kids. this isn't about anything more than identifying what we see in the files.

i personally don't look to Overgaard or Ming Thein to form our opinions.
No problem with that. Do you form your opinions solely on your own observations of other people's images (excluding Ming Thein or Overgaard of course)? Or have you made empirical observations of the Leica Q? I'm just curious to know how you arrive to the judgment that the Q is an overpriced low performer. I get that we all have different values and tastes on everything. That's not in question at all. My question is about these judgments which seem quite emphatic and explicit.

I too have captured many thousands of images with a fairly wide variety of digital cameras and film cameras as well. I'm very aware of how much the technology has improved and how good these new cameras and lenses truly are. Particularly in the flagship models of the various manufacturers, the quality is generally quite good. There are of course differences, some are measured in laboratory tests and others by user experience. I have not used the top of the line DSLRs so I don't know how much better they might be IQ wise or performance wise. I do know that they are large and heavy and not my choice for the sort of photography I do.

I have used a large number of P&S cameras, iPhones, mirrorless cameras and a few DSLRs with cropped sensors (consumer grade). Sure, they are all over the place in terms of performance, but clearly I prefer the M240 experience and output over all the others I tried. I'm looking forward to shooting with the Q and I hope I'm happy with it. If not, I'll sell it and wait for the next shiny thing to appear . I suspect I will love much about it but will find some faults with it as well. But I'm a guy who owns and (sometimes) shoots with a DP2-M, so perhaps I'm more tolerant in some respects.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2016   #45
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manuel Patino View Post
No problem with that. Do you form your opinions solely on your own observations of other people's images (excluding Ming Thein or Overgaard of course)? Or have you made empirical observations of the Leica Q? I'm just curious to know how you arrive to the judgment that the Q is an overpriced low performer. I get that we all have different values and tastes on everything. That's not in question at all. My question is about these judgments which seem quite emphatic and explicit.

I too have captured many thousands of images with a fairly wide variety of digital cameras and film cameras as well. I'm very aware of how much the technology has improved and how good these new cameras and lenses truly are. Particularly in the flagship models of the various manufacturers, the quality is generally quite good. There are of course differences, some are measured in laboratory tests and others by user experience. I have not used the top of the line DSLRs so I don't know how much better they might be IQ wise or performance wise. I do know that they are large and heavy and not my choice for the sort of photography I do.

I have used a large number of P&S cameras, iPhones, mirrorless cameras and a few DSLRs with cropped sensors (consumer grade). Sure, they are all over the place in terms of performance, but clearly I prefer the M240 experience and output over all the others I tried. I'm looking forward to shooting with the Q and I hope I'm happy with it. If not, I'll sell it and wait for the next shiny thing to appear . I suspect I will love much about it but will find some faults with it as well. But I'm a guy who owns and (sometimes) shoots with a DP2-M, so perhaps I'm more tolerant in some respects.
i have made no mention of the q price or overall performance. i did agree that the high iso images shown here, as examples of the q's high iso performance, do not look good at all. the only camera i actually brought up was the m8.

i am though, quite emphatic that these 'high iso samples' from the q don't present well. you nailed that part.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2016   #46
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,706
And it's even possible to tone down the saturation from Candy Land to actual Crete.

Regardless, some nice colorful shots.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2016   #47
AlejandroI
Registered User
 
AlejandroI is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 41
The Q is a great machine, but is average regarding image quality if compared to other cameras on the market. I have one and love it because its fun to shoot. But high iso as dynamic range are lacking compare to Sony A7ii, Sony Rx1 v1, nikon DF, (all of these cameras I had). Now compare to newer cameras i can not say, but probably is even worst....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2016   #48
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
IMO the dealbreaker is the banding. Not-so-hot ISO performance and lowish DR is workable as long as the noise is even, but banding is near impossible to correct. I can't think of any current cameras off the top of my head that show banding like the Q other than what I've seen of the 262 (occasional aggressive banding even at 1600).

For IQ the Q isn't average, it's below that. Really nice layout, build and handling though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-19-2016   #49
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,523
It's too bad that Leica couldn't have used a more standard CMOS sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2016   #50
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,523
Any updates in low light photos? How's it been going now that you guys have been using the Q for awhile?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2016   #51
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Any updates in low light photos? How's it been going now that you guys have been using the Q for awhile?
If you expose properly, you will not experience any banding. I am very happy with the results I get from the Q. Anyone claiming its performance is below average has some kind of weird personal agenda or simply doesn't know how to use it. Just my $0.02

No banding here and the color noise blobs are not there in the original file but jpg artifacts :
1/15s, f=1.7, ISO12500
__________________
Klaus
You have to be there !
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-29-2016   #52
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 637
Just a thought about the original photos, do they have any kind of image stabilisation on?

I had a Panasonic compact that used to give me similar effects around light sources at night. I couldn't get anything I liked from it until I turned it off, then it produced much better results.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2016   #53
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,622
I have the internal IS turned OFF - always.
And I use single shot AF mode.
__________________
Klaus
You have to be there !
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:17.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.