BrandonSi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #8 · Find the Q2 Image - Ricoh GR III(x) vs Leica Q2 | |
RustyBug wrote:
I've always liked the images I've seen on FM coming out of the GR, etc. Being a Pentax little cousin, of sorts, it comes from good stock, imo. It was high on my list of consideration for a small camera ... I went with the GX8 instead back when I was looking (for diff reasons). But, suffice to say it puts out a respectable image.
As to the comp vs. the Q2, plenty of subtle variation in these. WB and exposure variance gets seen in the paint wall color diff's. The color in E does seem a bit diff, but the exposure is a bit diff, too. so that could be the exposure vs. the camera color profiling, a bit too.
Hard to gauge the lens diff, since the proximity to the people girl varies. Maybe the closer focus capability of C is an indicator. Seems to have some vignetting and tonal variation differently too. But, here again, the comps aren't quite comparable for nuances.
No matter, the point is the proximity between them is noted after post-processing them to match. Could have gone the other way. You could also post-process the Q2 to match the GR. I recall a long time back in some threads where the PP of brand X was done and the look of the Zeiss glass being compared to was emulated rather well, by the PP.
It would be interesting to see how these same images as a set of five matched to the GR would compare to this set of five. 
...Show more →
Definitely some variation in framing which was intentional, otherwise it'd be pretty easy to pick out 40mm vs 28mm..  They are all at the same aperture though, f/2.8.
And I agree, I think with enough time one could edit an image from an IQ4 150 and Rodenstock glass to look like a Holga 120.. but the interesting aspect here was the lens rendering. To me that is the difficult part to get right.. Try as I might, I always struggled to get a similar look out of Canon and Sony sensors and glass.. they were always too clinical, which led to adapting glass, which led to AF issues, etc...
It seems that whatever their initial goal, Ricoh has designed their lenses (or used existing designs) and ended up with a Leica-quality look to the images. The colors are off, clearly, but that's the easy part to fix, it takes me about 5 seconds per image to correct the color.
I should go look at the lens specs on the GR III / IIIx, I'd be curious if they share heritage with some of their similar Leica counterparts.
Anyway, Q/Q2 clearly have other amazing aspects like the full frame sensor, the much faster lens, and the tangible feel of the body and menus, etc.. there's a lot of "pros" to a Q/2 system, but from an IQ perspective, I think Ricoh manages to offer two compelling (and certainly less expensive) options for those who seek it.
|
). Like you, I have the SL2-S and the fact that the Q2 uses the same battery, means I don't have to double up on two sets of batteries and chargers when I travel and since the menus are almost identical, lends itself to intuitive control regardless of which body I pick up. A bonus is using either of my speedlights on either body. 
