highdesertmesa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.7 #20 · MS Optics Sonnetar 73mm f1.5 | |
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Initially, I have two broad thoughts. Overall usability is simply fantastically--engineered and executed just superbly. The battery and memory card doors, buttons (though I think they are a bit small) and overall balance, from the ergonomics to the grip, the lovely feel and finish. Total winner, opposite of something like a7c or RX1. I have always enjoyed Leica's logic and spartan simplicity for menus and such. Overall, it feels quite premium. The lens ergonomics and MF (best FBW I've tried) are wonderful too. I have thus far been impressed by the AF as well (though I've not pushed it). And in all but the most demanding circumstances, the camera's DR and noise profile is "sufficient" for me. 47mp is great as well.
The lens is better than I thought technically. Pinpoint sharp all over, axial CA control is wonderful, ghosting is minimal with essentially no veiling, very good colors and contrasts, stabilized, good at any distance so far--really, it's just remarkably consistent. Initially it does lack a little character, though it's better than other modern options like the 35 GM for my tastes. I do see some structure in OOF transitions zones and towards the corners, but it's not obtrusive and dig it. I find the files pleasant thus far, but not RX1 or 35 FLE wonderful. The draw is more transparent than the FLE (less micro-contrasts punch, less separation by FL and apeture, more controlled across the frame till 2.8). Those are the gold standards for me, though I realize this is a 28. I think I like it about as much as the 50 Lux and more than the 35 Lux ASPH Pre-FLE I owned in not apples-to-oranges thinking.
I find it quite stupid the camera makes you be in 2.8 in macro mode. As in really dumb. Those are my initial thoughts. I am more than luke warm but not thrilled. I do love the simplicity of the 1 prime + body set-up. For years for me it was the RX1, ZM 35/1.4, Pentax 31, Ultron 35/2, Sigma 35/2i and recently the 35 FLE. Not sure this offers a better fit than those. We'll see  And to be fair, I do prefer a wide 35 to 28. And, each of those combos offers something distinct in terms of IQ, size, rendering, usability, price, etc. I am also still learning the files of the Q2, and that will take a bit to optimize my processing.
I am going to a glacier hike tomorrow where the Q2 will get some run and I'll pop on a BPM 1/4 to soften the harshness of the snow in broad daylight. I'll probably have some questions after that
...Show more →
Great observations about the Q. That b&w car shot really demonstrates the dimensional rendering the Q lens gives at close to medium distance. I'm convinced this is a benefit of using a lens left mostly uncorrected for distortion then correcting it in software. To my eye the result is like a de-fished fisheye with a hint of a de-squeezed anamorphic 
I know many say this level of distortion correction results in an observable loss of micro contrast, but if there is any, I just can't see it. Same with sharpness across the frame. Amazing results considering the amount of distortion being corrected.
The f/2.8 limit in macro mode is due to the IQ loss you'd see if they let you shoot at f/2 or 1.7. Leica didn't want us to get soft results at macro distances. If you've ever tried to use the Fujifilm X100F at f/2 and MFD, that's what I think they were trying to prevent. Ever put the 28 Lux on a macro adapter on mirrorless and shot it at macro distance wide open? It looks terrible. But the 28 Lux at f/2.8 looks great at macro distances, just like the Q. If you want more shallow DOF than what the Q provides at f/2.8 in macro mode, then leave it at f/1.7 in non-macro mode and crop instead – results are pretty good from doing that.
Shot at f/1.7 and cropped instead of using macro mode
LEICA Q (Typ 116) 28.0 mm f/1.7 lens 28mm f/1.7 1/640s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
|
