When you have a chance please shoot some long landscapes with distant details, edges and corners
uhoh7 - I'm starting to think that you're trying to convince yourself not to buy a Q :P
I'll be frank. The quality difference between the two cameras Q vs M240 is visible. The difference between the 28Summicron-ASPH and 28Summilux-Q is also visible. In both instances the M-kit comes out on top.
HOWEVER, I will point out that there are optical points in favour of the Q. (Mostly subjective) I feel it renders better then the 28cron both on M240 and when compared to M9 (which is saying something, as the M9+28cron is one of my favourite wide combos). There is definitely more of a 3D pop to the Q. And I find overall bokeh/subject separation/colors to be better. I wouldn't comment on resolving power, as I don't have test data to backup my claims. But I don't feel that the 28cron resolves details as well, and I feel the contrast/sharpness might suffer near center frame. But again, just my personal feelings. The cron seems to be better corrected. I find I rarely if ever need to apply any corrections, where I'm finding that the 24 Summilux-asph correction works best for the Q (LR corrections).
And as for cameras, obviously good AF is good to have. And MF is really a joy to use. Not to mention the Q's ISO is better when you start climbing up 1600 iso and beyond. But it seems to still feel like a poorer quality sensor then the one supplied with the M240. I like it, but I just feel something's a bit better with the CMOSIS sensor.
Also the camera body isn't weather sealed, and doesn't feel as hardwearing as the M-kit. Which would/could be a problem for you. Especially knowing the types of images you shoot with your 28cron. You're what I'd like to call an adventure shooter I've said this before about your ski photos being more of a risk with the Q.
rscheffler wrote:
Adam - fun shots! Looks like the Q handles strong specular backlights pretty well, based on that one with the LED lights shining right at the camera, top right of frame #6.
In case anyone is interested, last week Sandy at Chromasoft posted a brief technical overview of the Q's DNG files.
I don't have direct comparisons, but some of the shots I took that night I feel would have been tricky to get with other lenses. And even the AF pulled through where it wouldn't have with the A7 series.
I also feel that flare, when it shows up, is very pretty. I don't use a hood and it rarely shows up, but it is nice when it does.
And yeah, just fun shots. I processed them for a digital that looks like it's trying to be film look
1 - For those asking about US availability. I asked around at a couple of stores today they all said "early July".
2 - As many in this thread have been pointing out, there seems to be a lot of Panasonic DNA in this camera. The viewfinder uses Panasonic tech, the O.I.S. smells like Panasonic to me right down the rattling lens when its off, the dealer I spoke with told me the Leica Q uses a Panasonic battery.
So my question is ... what are the odds that in six months we see a Panasonic branded version of this camera at half the price? ...Show more →
Very low.. I doubt that Leica would want to offend it's customer base, just based on the price of this thing. But I could be wrong. I think we're more likely to see another Q with a different lens. Then a followup interchangeable system 2 years from January/Feb of this year.
ebrandon wrote:
2 - As many in this thread have been pointing out, there seems to be a lot of Panasonic DNA in this camera. ..., the O.I.S. smells like Panasonic to me right down the rattling lens when its off,
I would not be surprised if the shutter / OIS unit is a Copal product in both the Q and the Panasonic.
1 - For those asking about US availability. I asked around at a couple of stores today they all said "early July".
2 - As many in this thread have been pointing out, there seems to be a lot of Panasonic DNA in this camera. The viewfinder uses Panasonic tech, the O.I.S. smells like Panasonic to me right down the rattling lens when its off, the dealer I spoke with told me the Leica Q uses a Panasonic battery.
So my question is ... what are the odds that in six months we see a Panasonic branded version of this camera at half the price? ...Show more →
I think the odds are zero that a Panasonic version of this comes out. Just as with the X-series, it's a Leica-only camera.
The availability question is interesting. It does seem to be a supply issue, as reports I've heard indicate most stores only got two or three of these. I was lucky enough to get on a list the day the Q was announced (love my Q), as it looks like my regular retailer won't be getting anymore of these for a while.
To satisfy my own curiosity and to let me move onto shooting proper images rather than the London skyline... I have just shot an infinity test between the Leica M240 with a Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH lens and the Leica Q
I have deliberately taken images at all apertures from each lens - both lenses have been manually focused with live view. I did not refocus at each aperture. The Elmarit ASPH was focused at f2.8 and the Leica Q at f1.7
My conclusions so far are that the Leica Q is very sharp from wide open even at f1.7 and it improves until f5.6 to f8 where the most uniform performance across the frame is observed.
The Leica M240 with an Elmarit ASPH in comparison is not quiet as sharp as I thought it would be wide open but is very good from f5.6 onwards. Diffraction seems to be less of an issue and its performance at small apertures (f11 and f16) is better compared to the Leica Q when set to equivalent (f11/f16) apertures.
Moire seems to be at very similar levels.
Overall unless anyone thinks otherwise I find it very hard to see evidence of weak corners and I am pleasantly surprised with the performance from the Leica Q which seems to be better at wide apertures, the same at mid apertures and worst at f11 and f16. Given that I shoot most of my Landscapes at f8 (to limit diffraction) and cityscapes/street usually at f4 or f5.6 or even wide open this is great news for how I usually use a camera.
The tests are by no means scientific however I hope they can help people reach their own conclusions.
nicoimages wrote:
To satisfy my own curiosity and to let me move onto shooting proper images rather than the London skyline... I have just shot an infinity test between the Leica M240 with a Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH lens and the Leica Q
I have deliberately taken images at all apertures from each lens - both lenses have been manually focused with live view. I did not refocus at each aperture. The Elmarit ASPH was focused at f2.8 and the Leica Q at f1.7
My conclusions so far are that the Leica Q is very sharp from wide open even at f1.7 and it improves until f5.6 to f8 where the most uniform performance across the frame is observed.
The Leica M240 with an Elmarit ASPH in comparison is not quiet as sharp as I thought it would be wide open but is very good from f5.6 onwards. Diffraction seems to be less of an issue and its performance at small apertures (f11 and f16) is better compared to the Leica Q when set to equivalent (f11/f16) apertures.
Moire seems to be at very similar levels.
Overall unless anyone thinks otherwise I find it very hard to see evidence of weak corners and I am pleasantly surprised with the performance from the Leica Q which seems to be better at wide apertures, the same at mid apertures and worst at f11 and f16. Given that I shoot most of my Landscapes at f8 (to limit diffraction) and cityscapes/street usually at f4 or f5.6 or even wide open this is great news for how I usually use a camera.
The tests are by no means scientific however I hope they can help people reach their own conclusions.
Technically, I don't see any corners at the longer distances that show anything other than sky, though of course that can often be the case with landscapes so it may not matter to most. The borders are interesting as we still see moire patterns and false color (more than one would typically see at the level of detail resolved in that area). Perhaps the moire and false color are there initially because the lens is natively so sharp but then the distortion correction softens the fine detail a bit yet the moire patterns and false color remain. It's a strange effect.
I think this lens/ sensor combo might have benefited from a light AA filter such as is used on the original Sony RX1. The moire seems extreme in situations like this and even if one were to convert to B&W, there would still be a strange, mosaic pattern left behind. Seems I recall reading/ seeing where the jpeg engine removes the moire? Does it also somehow remove that mosaic pattern?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Technically, I don't see any corners at the longer distances that show anything other than sky, though of course that can often be the case with landscapes so it may not matter to most. The borders are interesting as we still see moire patterns and false color (more than one would typically see at the level of detail resolved in that area). Perhaps the moire and false color are there initially because the lens is natively so sharp but then the distortion correction softens the fine detail a bit yet the moire patterns and false color remain. It's a strange effect.
I think this lens/ sensor combo might have benefited from a light AA filter such as is used on the original Sony RX1. The moire seems extreme in situations like this and even if one were to convert to B&W, there would still be a strange, mosaic pattern left behind. Seems I recall reading/ seeing where the jpeg engine removes the moire? Does it also somehow remove that mosaic pattern?
Thanks for posting the jpeg. That's very interesting that the mosaic pattern is not there with the jpeg version. I can very well see someone preferring to use the jpeg in certain situations.
Just received my Q today- what an amazing camera. I really love the AF and all the features with it, it makes me not miss the M anymore... If they make another Q with a 50mm I would not hesitate to get another copy.. This may be the future for Leica...
onaujee wrote:
Just received my Q today- what an amazing camera. I really love the AF and all the features with it, it makes me not miss the M anymore... If they make another Q with a 50mm I would not hesitate to get another copy.. This may be the future for Leica...
Best,
J
May we ask who your dealer is? All the stores I called in the SF Bay Area didn't have the camera yet.
Well, no matter my emotional reaction to native lens distortion, I think Leica has a real hit with this camera
Nico, TYG, you have given me a good excuse to moderate any lust I might have for the Q, as I covet my best glass F/11 performance, where the 28 cron really excels in comparison.
Love to see the local masters at work with this rig
Nico, are you using the auto-focus and/or IS much? Come to think of it, considering the lens is "hamstrung" by both of these features, performance is very good.
What would be most interesting is a side by side with D810 and 28/1.8 G
If this is the corner performance @2.2, then it is not good IMO.
This is an extreme close-up (30cm) - the green plants are not all at the same level hence why they are not sharp this is not the lens being unsharp but a case of me not having used the right aperture to get better depth of field.
Download the infinity series comparison vs Elmarit ASPH that I posted previously - this should give you a better idea of what the lens is capable of.
In an effort to try and convince myself to buy a M246 I decided to shoot the Q like a monochrom. It backfired because I had so much fun that I probably don't need to buy the Monochrome anymore. (I still might, who knows):
(I'm starting to get worried, this camera is so much fun/easy, it's turning into a point and shoot. Gonna switch back to the M camera before I get to comfy)
I've said this before about your ski photos being more of a risk with the Q. 
