I'm worried about the addition of on-sensor PDAF. If not implemented properly, image processing can exacerbate striping artifacts esp in the shadows, like what was seen on Nikon's first Z6/Z7 implementations. Hopefully Leica won't repeat Nikon's mistakes.
snapsy wrote:
I'm worried about the addition of on-sensor PDAF. If not implemented properly, image processing can exacerbate striping artifacts esp in the shadows, like what was seen on Nikon's first Z6/Z7 implementations. Hopefully Leica won't repeat Nikon's mistakes.
Don't have a lot to go on yet, but not seeing that in the high iso sample images thus far. Agreed though, will be looking out for that.
BrandonSi wrote:
Don't have a lot to go on yet, but not seeing that in the high iso sample images thus far. Agreed though, will be looking out for that.
It typically only shows up at low ISO and when the shadows are heavily pushed - the noise at high ISO exposures dithers the stripes and makes them unnoticeable.
patotts wrote:
Yes, the new cameras will be on display at Leica boutiques tomorrow afternoon.
I know how to work around the 28mm, but I would have preferred to have a 35, 40 or 50 mm option as well.
I'm basically torn, I enjoy the 28mm when I'm on travel, especially in European cities, you have less space to back up and you still get a bit of context. I don't mind backing up a bit when shooting people in general or in groups, but sometimes you want to be able to see the facial expression of e.g. wife or daughter, then being to close equals less flatting. I yeah know, 1st world problem... And I can always grab my Sony A7R5 + 50GM for those shots. But still...
I'll swing by the Leica store in DC tomorrow to take it for a spin. ...Show more →
So, you want Leica with interchangeable lenses and autofocus? That would be SL2, or Sony
Maybe Leica can learn from Ricoh and make another Q with 40-50mm? People will have to have two Qs instead of one. Easiest sale ever!
I think at 40mm to 50mm, autofocus performance becomes a lot more important than at 28mm/35mm due to depth of field. I felt the AF weaknesses of the Ricoh GR III were multiplied in the IIIx when I had it.
BrandonSi wrote:
Don't have a lot to go on yet, but not seeing that in the high iso sample images thus far. Agreed though, will be looking out for that.
Agreed! I’m still limiting auto ISOon my Q3 to 6400, but good knowing I could step a bit higher if needed. Sounds like the DNG’s play very will with pure raw denoising.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a substantial difference and the Sony 60MP sensor does not have a reputation for producing clean high ISO files.
I have been trying to limit my M11 color images to ISO 6400 MAX also. I find with the excellent noise reduction tools available these days it produces a very nice usable image. On black and white I am comfortable with a couple of stops higher. Somehow a little noise (grain) is acceptable. Better to have a little noise than motion blur in my opinion.
BrandonSi wrote:
Agreed! I’m still limiting auto ISOon my Q3 to 6400, but good knowing I could step a bit higher if needed. Sounds like the DNG’s play very will with pure raw denoising.
I really like PureRAW, but these days I prefer LR's Denoise. I think the results look more natural, especially when getting rid of noise in out-of-focus areas. Thanks to these new tools, high ISO noise isn't a big problem anymore. Suddenly, all sensors, including APS-C, have impressive ISO capabilities.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Oh, tomorrow is approaching fast!
The unflattering appearance in portraits is determined by the distance from the subject. By using a 35mm crop, you can maintain a slightly greater distance, while a 50 or 75mm crop allows you to stay even further away while maintaining the same composition, resulting in less distortion on faces. It's also possible to achieve no distortion at 28mm, but that would require creating some distance between you and the subject. This approach may not be suitable for close-up portraits, but it works well for full body or environmental portraits.
The Q does require more care for close-up portraits than a 28 with less software distortion correction.
The 35 crop is a great way to go as you mentioned. I love the 35 crop on the Q2. Sometimes I'd just leave it in 35 crop mode and forget about it. I've said before that the Q can easily be used as a 35mm APS-H(ish) camera with an available 28mm full frame image. Maybe it's just me that I tend to crop too tightly at 28, but I often found my 28 images were better when I shot in 35 crop mode.
I said earlier in this thread that the lens was my least favorite part of the Q cameras. For me, that doesn’t mean sharpness. It means the ~24mm focal length. You can tell a noticeable difference in wide angle distortion (and unflattering portraits) when you’re close to MFD compared to a real 28mm. And from my experience, the best use of a (true) 28mm for portraits is to be up close and personal.
So I mostly use the Q’s in 35 mode all the time. I can be a little further back and see framelines similar to a M camera and the wide angle distortion is not as apparent. It also has the added benefit of removing any of the distortion correction/pixel stretching that the software correction applies to the corners and edges. And of course, the full image is always available should I want more in the frame or to “move the crop”.
mark1958 wrote:
Have you tried Topaz DeNoise AI? I have been impressed.
I have it and initially thought it looked good but then noticed some blurring and sharp outlines (not a lot but noticeable) I like the new Lightroom option much better.
Jun Zhou wrote:
hope this kind of folding screen won't break easily like XPRO3
No offense to Fuji fans, but I've always found the build quality on their cameras to be a notch below Canon and Sony, and far below Leica—certainly on their X100 series. I'd be very surprised if the articulated screen on the Q3 turns out to be fragile.
I found it depends on the settings used-- for example I never liked the RAW default setting -- However, I have only used it on a few images that I took at really high iso and have not used it a lot.
jmmaher wrote:
I have it and initially thought it looked good but then noticed some blurring and sharp outlines (not a lot but noticeable) I like the new Lightroom option much better.
