p.5 #1 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
JoeFriday wrote:
Another thing about Winogrand... he shot so much film that I believe he relied more on the law of probability than photographic composition. At the time of his death, he had 2500 rolls of undeveloped film, and another 6500 rolls of processed film that he hadn't looked at.
Nah... all street shooters shoot a lot and have a horrible hit/miss ratio, it's just the nature of the beast. But very few (arguably nobody) had such a huge collection of iconic street photos as GW in the end.
Re his last 2500 rolls, the director of MoMA had them developed after GW's death, edited them and did one last exhibition. The quality had dropped considerably, but maybe it had something to do that GW was sick with cancer when he was shooting those.
p.5 #2 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Spyro P. wrote:
Nah... all street shooters shoot a lot and have a horrible hit/miss ratio, it's just the nature of the beast. But very few (arguably nobody) had such a huge collection of iconic street photos as GW in the end.
... Which is exactly why having more pixels (i.e. larger sensor) can benefit street shooters. More pixels can be "thrown out" to straighten images or pick out "incidental" subjects. It offers a bit more spacing for stealth shooters.
If we are comparing Leica vs. RX1rII for stealth street, the Sony wins hands down. It's smaller, barely larger than a cheap P&S, doesn't have that huge red dot and has the larger sensor.
p.5 #3 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
dandrewk wrote:
... Which is exactly why having more pixels (i.e. larger sensor) can benefit street shooters. More pixels can be "thrown out" to straighten images or pick out "incidental" subjects. It offers a bit more spacing for stealth shooters.
If we are comparing Leica vs. RX1rII for stealth street, the Sony wins hands down. It's smaller, barely larger than a cheap P&S, doesn't have that huge red dot and has the larger sensor.
I would hardly call the Q large, Red Dot is easily covered with a bit of black tape and in fact the Sony has a lot more labelling on the front of the camera, It has the same sized FF sensor (Sony has more mp's) so I fail to see how the Sony wins 'hands down'. As a street camera I would take the Leica any day, the Sony is a fine camera but not for me
p.5 #4 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
dandrewk wrote:
... Which is exactly why having more pixels (i.e. larger sensor) can benefit street shooters. More pixels can be "thrown out" to straighten images or pick out "incidental" subjects. It offers a bit more spacing for stealth shooters.
If we are comparing Leica vs. RX1rII for stealth street, the Sony wins hands down. It's smaller, barely larger than a cheap P&S, doesn't have that huge red dot and has the larger sensor.
they both have the same size sensor and the leica is much easier to focus without looking. the rx1r2 is probably easier to shoot without being noticed, but it's harder to change focus quickly with and prefocus with.
p.5 #5 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
dandrewk wrote:
... Which is exactly why having more pixels (i.e. larger sensor) can benefit street shooters. More pixels can be "thrown out" to straighten images or pick out "incidental" subjects. It offers a bit more spacing for stealth shooters.
If we are comparing Leica vs. RX1rII for stealth street, the Sony wins hands down. It's smaller, barely larger than a cheap P&S, doesn't have that huge red dot and has the larger sensor.
I'd argue that having less pixels, and as a result, having to get closer to an intended subject, instead of just relying on cropping the heck out of a high MP image taken from across the street and hoping to find an incidental subject, probably would make one a better overall street photographer.
And I'm sorry, but come on.... "Huge red dot"..... The dot is only 4mm in diameter, so much smaller than a US dime... The Sony logo is easily twice that size....
Don't know why these type of threads always break down into silly hyperbole
"Street stealth" among photographers is as annoying to me as the obsession with "tactical" this and that is among the mall ninja's on gun forums....
p.5 #6 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Regarding the discussion above inferring that the quality of the 28mm Leica lens used on the Q was inferior to normal Leica standards, I am reminded of what is often said regarding "Coffeebucks" - it uses lesser quality (unripened) beans, then over-roast the beans (to make up for the inferior quality). Yet, coffee drinkers run to their stores to buy this coffee/roast hand over fist. Perhaps Leica is taking the business cue from them - use a lesser quality lens, then let the computer regenerate the photo to make up for the cheap design/build. "Picture-takers" could run to the store to buy them - making Leica highly profitable too.
Just a thought...not saying it is true...just a thought!!!! Nah, a bad thought!!
p.5 #7 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
I'd argue that having less pixels, and as a result, having to get closer to an intended subject, instead of just relying on cropping the heck out of a high MP image taken from across the street and hoping to find an incidental subject, probably would make one a better overall street photographer.
And I'm sorry, but come on.... "Huge red dot"..... The dot is only 4mm in diameter, so much smaller than a US dime... The Sony logo is easily twice that size....
Don't know why these type of threads always break down into silly hyperbole
"Street stealth" among photographers is as annoying to me as the obsession with "tactical" this and that is among the mall ninja's on gun forums....
Wow, and you inserted the word "silly hyperbole" into a post filled with it.
You don't like stealth street photography. I get it. Is that any reason to parse/cherry pick my comment with thinly veiled barbs?
BTW, the "red dot" I was referring to the Leica as a whole. For STEALTH it's a bit harder to melt into the scenery compared to the RX. Which, using your analogy, is exactly the same as hiding an AK-47 in a crowded mall.
If you want to add (yet) another stealth street photography debate, let's not hijack this thread.
p.5 #11 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
The huge "red dot" on the Q compared to the size of an American dime.
I think its big enough that passersby on the street will be noticing it from about 3 blocks way....
This was always meant to be a minor point. Ok, my fail on that one.
I'm not poking fun at the red dot, and I realize it's quite small. For the normal layman (aka muggle ), if they see an RX1 on the street, they can mistake it for a point/shoot and pay little or no mind. Not so much with the Leica. Granted, the Q is not some big honking Canon DSLR, but the unobtrusiveness of the RX is one of its strengths in street photography.
Again, minor point.
We'll save the "is it street photography, or is it portraiture?" discussion for another thread.
p.5 #12 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
....1. I'm not sure that 28mm is an ideal focal length for general purpose shooting, particularly spontaneous portraits, which is what I love doing....
....Rob
I've gone back and forth over the years between different focal lengths, but I've really grown to love 28mm because it captures the "scene". Sure, its nice to have some 50mm or 85mm portraits where all you see is the subject and a creamy blurred background but as I look back at old photos what I often really appreciate is the entire scene of the "portrait" - where was that? What were we doing that day? What was so special about where that was taken? Was that last summer or fall?
p.5 #13 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Some "silly hyperbole" aside, this thread has some excellent information and opinion on two very good cameras.
I've had a chance to use both and they each have their merits - can we all agree to that?
It all comes down to personal preference based on your shooting style, no more, no less.
Honestly, I wish I could mash the two cameras together. The RX1RII is the form factor I desire - I find the Q too large - and I really, really like the tilt screen for inconspicuous waist level shooting. The Q is just a firecracker in the AF department and the MF is fantastic although can someone confirm whether you can move the MF zoom area on the fly? I couldn't get the focus point to move like it does in AF mode. I'm sure I must have missed something.
I honestly prefer the Sony's EVF tech substantially more than the Leica's - even the SL's EVF. The Sony EVF has a much more natural contrast and accurate color setting that looks more organic to me. I just had this discussion with a couple sales associates at Precision Camera and when I pointed out how muddy and low contrast the Leica EVF looked in comparison they agreed. Take it for what it is worth, your opinion may differ.
The 28mm 1.7 is terrific and I love the ability to crop to what is essentially a 35/2 - very flexible if you don't mind the resolution hit at 35mm and 50mm. I beg of Sony to mimic the ability to set a crop in RAW and have the crop hold when imported in LR like the Leica does - brilliant. If the RX1RII had that same function you could have an 18mp or so RAW file at 50mm. As it stands the Sony smart teleconverter only works in JPEG mode.
The Leica files really pop at 24mp while the Sony files are denser with more tonality. Again, my opinion based on my shooting experience and more importantly, my editing experience. The Leica files simply cannot be edited as deeply as the Sony files and for me this is a big deal. For a JPEG shooter or someone who applies minimal post to RAW - not a consideration. One camera's deficit is another shooters preference.
Other things I prefer on the Leica - the direct access to AF point setting, bigger battery, built-in electronic high speed shutter negating the need for a ND and of course OIS.
On the Sony side, the pop-up EVF is fantastic but again, I place emphasis on the form factor where others may like the larger Q. I also think the build quality is better than the Q, which feels a bit hollow. The eye-AF and object tracking features are excellent but at the end of the day it comes down to the files. I just love working those big, rich RAW files and feel they are the closest thing to MF film I have ever shot with in digital. Couple those files with the compact size, superb lens and very good AF compared to the Q's excellent, and the RX1RII gets the nod for me.
That doesn't keep me from giving this look to Leica Q owners though...
p.5 #15 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
On mine, I see 28mm FoV on both the LCD and the evf, or if I add the 35 frame lines, they show up in both the LCD and the evf. How are you able to get a cropped LCD with frame lines but keep the evf view free of them?
Same on mine
What I meant is that you actually get a different FoV shooting with the LCD because you are holding the camera 20-50cm away from your face, making it close to a 35mm FoV compared to a traditional camera that only had a viewfinder.
p.5 #16 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Chad Wadsworth wrote:
Some "silly hyperbole" aside, this thread has some excellent information and opinion on two very good cameras.
I've had a chance to use both and they each have their merits - can we all agree to that?
It all comes down to personal preference based on your shooting style, no more, no less.
Honestly, I wish I could mash the two cameras together. The RX1RII is the form factor I desire - I find the Q too large - and I really, really like the tilt screen for inconspicuous waist level shooting. The Q is just a firecracker in the AF department and the MF is fantastic although can someone confirm whether you can move the MF zoom area on the fly? I couldn't get the focus point to move like it does in AF mode. I'm sure I must have missed something.
I honestly prefer the Sony's EVF tech substantially more than the Leica's - even the SL's EVF. The Sony EVF has a much more natural contrast and accurate color setting that looks more organic to me. I just had this discussion with a couple sales associates at Precision Camera and when I pointed out how muddy and low contrast the Leica EVF looked in comparison they agreed. Take it for what it is worth, your opinion may differ.
The 28mm 1.7 is terrific and I love the ability to crop to what is essentially a 35/2 - very flexible if you don't mind the resolution hit at 35mm and 50mm. I beg of Sony to mimic the ability to set a crop in RAW and have the crop hold when imported in LR like the Leica does - brilliant. If the RX1RII had that same function you could have an 18mp or so RAW file at 50mm. As it stands the Sony smart teleconverter only works in JPEG mode.
The Leica files really pop at 24mp while the Sony files are denser with more tonality. Again, my opinion based on my shooting experience and more importantly, my editing experience. The Leica files simply cannot be edited as deeply as the Sony files and for me this is a big deal. For a JPEG shooter or someone who applies minimal post to RAW - not a consideration. One camera's deficit is another shooters preference.
Other things I prefer on the Leica - the direct access to AF point setting, bigger battery, built-in electronic high speed shutter negating the need for a ND and of course OIS.
On the Sony side, the pop-up EVF is fantastic but again, I place emphasis on the form factor where others may like the larger Q. I also think the build quality is better than the Q, which feels a bit hollow. The eye-AF and object tracking features are excellent but at the end of the day it comes down to the files. I just love working those big, rich RAW files and feel they are the closest thing to MF film I have ever shot with in digital. Couple those files with the compact size, superb lens and very good AF compared to the Q's excellent, and the RX1RII gets the nod for me.
That doesn't keep me from giving this look to Leica Q owners though...
Agreed that a lot of the feature comparison is subjective.
Regarding the Sony smart teleconverter only working in JPEG mode, I could be wrong, but I think in-camera RAW crops can only be done with DNG files (and not ARW files)
As for the files, I find the Q files just as workable as my RX1R files. I found this odd at first, but when DXO came out with their Leica Q test it all made sense. Even though the RX1R has a DR advantage of 1 stop at base ISO, the Q sensor matches the performance of the RX1R sensor at ISO 400 and surpasses it at ISO 800. So for a lot of my street shooting (including indoors and night) the Q files are equal to my RX1R files.
And given the timing of this article, I'm guessing the DXO test was done with firmware ver 1.0. I can confirm that firmware ver 1.1 performs better across all ISO's. And there's no more banding either
p.5 #17 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Delatant wrote:
Regarding the discussion above inferring that the quality of the 28mm Leica lens used on the Q was inferior to normal Leica standards, I am reminded of what is often said regarding "Coffeebucks" - it uses lesser quality (unripened) beans, then over-roast the beans (to make up for the inferior quality). Yet, coffee drinkers run to their stores to buy this coffee/roast hand over fist. Perhaps Leica is taking the business cue from them - use a lesser quality lens, then let the computer regenerate the photo to make up for the cheap design/build. "Picture-takers" could run to the store to buy them - making Leica highly profitable too.
Just a thought...not saying it is true...just a thought!!!! Nah, a bad thought!! ...Show more →
I didn't know that about Starbucks but it's certainly true optically with the Leica Q lens. There is an extreme amount of digital correction going on to the degree that the uncorrected optical image does not fully cover the full 35mm frame and has almost fisheye-like distortion - a very Panasonic m43-like approach to optical design but very un-Leica. That said, it's still amazing the IQ produced at closer distance even with the huge amount of digital correction...and I do enjoy my Starbucks coffee in the end.
One thing that is interesting in the way Leica(Panasonic) handles the loss in resolution due to the cropping necessitated by the digital correction is that the sensor is actually 26MP's so the effective resolution becomes 24MP's. That's much better than what m43 (and all others really) typically do by cropping to a lower resolution and then interpolating back up in size to the stated sensor resolution.
p.5 #18 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I didn't know that about Starbucks but it's certainly true optically with the Leica Q lens. There is an extreme amount of digital correction going on to the degree that the uncorrected optical image does not fully cover the full 35mm frame and has almost fisheye-like distortion - a very Panasonic m43-like approach to optical design but very un-Leica. That said, it's still amazing the IQ produced at closer distance even with the huge amount of digital correction...and I do enjoy my Starbucks coffee in the end.
One thing that is interesting in the way Leica(Panasonic) handles the loss in resolution due to the cropping necessitated by the digital correction is that the sensor is actually 26MP's so the effective resolution becomes 24MP's. That's much better than what m43 (and all others really) typically do by cropping to a lower resolution and then interpolating back up in size to the stated sensor resolution.
p.5 #19 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Actually Leica uses the m43 approach... That is what I don't like about m43 as I needed to use rawtherapeee... The Q raw image that I processed in rawtherapee shows 6008x4008 pixels with dark corners, only 24MP.... M43 lenses at least cover the full image. Only Canon gx7/Panasonic FZ1000 P&S with 1" sensors have dark corners at 24mm equiv.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
One thing that is interesting in the way Leica(Panasonic) handles the loss in resolution due to the cropping necessitated by the digital correction is that the sensor is actually 26MP's so the effective resolution becomes 24MP's. That's much better than what m43 (and all others really) typically do by cropping to a lower resolution and then interpolating back up in size to the stated sensor resolution.
), if they see an RX1 on the street, they can mistake it for a point/shoot and pay little or no mind. Not so much with the Leica. Granted, the Q is not some big honking Canon DSLR, but the unobtrusiveness of the RX is one of its strengths in street photography.
