The Q2 is everything I want in a camera. I am a one-camera-one-lens photographer. I can confidently use 1/15 second shutter speed to effect motion blur while maintaining sharp focus of stationary objects. The camera has the ability to pre-crop in the viewfinder, simulating several focal lengths (there are adequate megapixels for cropping). I set it for 35mm. Weather-sealing, excellent build quality, simplicity and esthetics contribute to confidence in foul-weather shooting, and a high level of user experience. Is it worth the price? Of course.
I loved your review because you confirmed my decision to buy the Q just as the Q2 was coming out. My reasons were 1. The price, since the price of the Q dropped to around $4000 or less, and 2. I didn't want to deal with 47 MP. Even when one crops to a higher mm lens, the raw file is still full frame or 25 MP for the Q and 47 MP for the Q2. One improvement that others have mentioned is the viewfinder is noticeably better which is OLED in the Q2 than the Q. I haven't seen a Q2 myself. I will say that I wish the viewfinder had a better eye shade. Light can come in from the side, making it difficult to see the image. For me, $4000 was a splurge, but worth it. I love the camera.
Not to mention the best feature of this camera the leaf shutter lens That alone is worth the price of the camera, for any group or full length with flash in daylight is priceless. I did use the q really felt in love with that camera for that feature and a very quiet 🤫 shutter.
I appreciate your review and knowledge of the Leica brand. I am going for the original Q. I think I would like weather sealing, but I will not shoot in the rain. The Q is my next Leica. Thank you! Sean
I disagree with you on resolution: 1. High resolution makes sense if you want more crop modes (and crop modes are good zoom replacements). 2. High resolution also eliminates the need for shift lenses (because you do lose some detail after correcting for converging verticals). Also, the Q/2 is amazing even if you only shoot the 28mm focal length. Compare any DSLR with a 28/1.8 to the Q series and it will be at least twice as big. The A7 series, OTOH... Anyway, I now look forward to your Panasonic S1 review. It never ends! :-)
Some people are totally obsessed with resolution and sharpness.. Thats all they look at. They base their opinion on cameras and lenses just by how sharp it can render.. Thats BS if you ask me
I understand Leica with the decision to go for high Mpix. The ability to crop to 35mm or 50mm with enough pixel left, is great. What they should do is, to go for a Q2r and a Q2s. One with a lot of Mpix and the other with the max possible ISO performance. For me, this Q2 is very interesting. Also the price, if you compare it to something like the Rx1rII.
Thanks Steve, What camera is the best for low light stills in your opinion, currently I own a A9 and a omd Em1 mark ii, I am looking for a change and consider SL, Q original, or SL2S.. What's your thoughts?, thanks Frank from New Zealand
Well i own the Q2 and SL2. My opinion is not the same as yours for the Q2 in low light conditions. Maybe you did not have the new firmware version 2.00 when you did your review.
I brought a used Q two years ago before the Q2 came out and used it as a travel camera for many occasions. I don't find myself wanting / needing the Q2 for its higher megapixel counts except for situations where I need to crop to 50+mm equivalent. The original Q is a very capable camera with the same 28mm summilux and you can get it now with a very reasonable price from 2.5k to 3k USD. As a Fujifilm X100T owner, I don't think the lens offered by Fujifilm at the X100 level is in anyway close to 28mm Summilux. I still have my Fujifilm but I only use it if I need to go into potentially dangerous areas. Although 28mm is enough for me, I really want to get a rangefinder now to get the full Leica manual focus experience. After leaving my film camera behind for a few years because it is hard to find quality film development shops in my area, I want to get back to that magical film shooting experience. I think the Lecia M is the answer in this digital age and the M 240 is not that expensive now.
Hi ISO is not preferable anyway. This is not because of noise but because of dynamic range (which drops inline with ISO increase, killing of all the quality of your expensive sensor/camera! Use primes 1.x. I have never (or very rarely) been in a situation where I needed ISO 6400... Catch the light, not the darkness 😊
When looking through the EVF and using the 35mm crop, does the projected image appear as 35mm or as a 28mm with cropped frame lines? I can see that in the rear monitor it appears as the latter.
Go and buy a used original Q if you can find a good one. Leica Q has much better ISO handling and low light performance than the Q2. 24 mp is huge, even for croppings. Take the Q and spend the rest of your 2000 bucks to a tropic vacation 😎
The Summilux 28 mm f/1.7 ASPH alone could cost at least 3.000$. The camera costs 5.000$. So it is not really expensive. The M mount Leica rangefinder cameras are not weather resistant. The Leica Q2 it is. No fear of rain. I like the native ISO 50. It is the lowest native ISO of full frame as far as I know. It should offer great dynamic range control with raw files. The mechanical shutter speed 1/2000th sec isn't nice. The electronic shutter speed 1/40.000th sec is impressive but rolling shutter should be a problem. The flash synchronization 1/500th sec is good but the similar Sony RX1 series has a much faster leaf shutter.
If only you could keep the 28 summilux when the time comes to upgrade, and just spend $2000 on the new body, then yes, it would be inexpensive. That said, I think it's a very good camera and will be buying it.
Leaving aside image quality and field-of-view questions, the one thing I WILL say is that the Q/Q2 are NOT small, pocketable cameras. Of course standards vary, but if I want something with at least an APS-C sensor that is not much effort to take with me (e.g. put in a coat pocket) the X100 models, even a CL with an 18/23 mm (to say nothing of the GRiii) fit the bill to a much better degree.
You can buy 1000 coffee makers or 10 refrigerators or 8 washer/dryer or even 10 year old BMW for the price of the Q - but you should get the Q instead :)))
Nice real life review. I am deeply into Nikon Z7 and DSLRS with an extensive line of lenses so will not be going in that direction. But for someone who is well heeled and starting out, it could be a good street photo or vacation camera. A longer lens such as 35mm would have been better in my opinion. If in New York City, LA or Chicago, you might want to place a bit of gaffer tape over the 🔴 logo.
Pavel Subert thats probably because the Q2 was announced... when the q2 Wasnt announced it cost around 3200€ .. so when you warn to Get a Q i guess now is the Time ;)
I don't understand why the quality is so bad for a full frame cam is it because of all the mpx? I use to shoot with different cam and few months ago I did some concert shooting with a G85 and 15mm f1.7 micro 43 sensor and performed better, strange
The quality is superb. Its just when you get into ISO 12800 and up that it goes to mush, an area where no M 43 can travel. This is a superb camera, just not a crazy low light camera. Thanks.
It is important to note that the metering is apparently based on the focal length crop used. Therefore, cropping on a computer after shooting at 28 mm is NOT equivalent to using the crop on camera. In some lighting situations, it could make a substantial difference.
@@jankarlsson8341 Not correct. Perspective and DOF are different. Of course it will be useable anyway, but a real 35 will give you a visibly different picture.
I'm wondering the same thing. What's going on here. I would guess pixel pitch is hurting. Full frame isn't inherently better at low light. Low light is improved by reducing noise through more space between each pixel on the sensor. Higher megapixel count is going to hurt that drastically, which is why Fuji went medium format digital with GFX 50S. That said, not sure if pixel pitch is better on RX1 R2, or Sony just has a superior set of features on that particular sensor.
A perfect everyday camera will hav a good full frame sensor with that amazing lens, good battery life, weather sealing, great AF even in low light and a price tag below USD1200… which will never exist. Q2 is a great camera, but not sth u call perfect, at that price range and that low light performace.. nope. It's more niche than the RX1/X100 series..
@@webdesign6776 That is certainly true. But if you take a photo with a 28mm you need to crop significantly more, lose resolution and have significantly less subject separation too if you decide to take your (for example) portrait from the same distance as you would with a 35mm. So with the 35mm you get more compression while still filling the frame with your subject and retaining more subject separation at the same time.
Tobias Weisserth however, at 50mm the sensor area you are using is about APS-C in size. It’s a great option but if 50mm is your main FOV, the Q2 doesn’t make that much sense anymore.
Mort Schubert I know what you mean, usually I set a limit on my ISO knowing where it’s going to start introducing noise and then set auto ISO and I’m good. Everything else can be adjusted using shutter speed and aperture
Why even try that? Well ... because sometimes there‘s no other choice? With my camera and a f/1.7 lens I often have to go to ISO8000, and a grainy image is better than a blurry one.
Thar camera costs about $5000 Canadian, so NOT a good choice for an everyday camera! You could buy a Fuji X100F and have anough left over to travel to Europe to take some pics for the price of a Q2
No problem in post production... So much more capable than the Q though, which is why I chose it over the Q... Especially in low light capabilities and the Exmor R back lit and Bionz X are among the best sensor/ processor in the business. The Zeiss Sonnar is incredible too
No....the perfect everyday camera to me is the Nikon Coolpix A....APSC...28mm 2.8 lens ...Nikon D7000 processor...and it really fits in your jean pockets,
@@RAMSEYSPENCER That's not what you said, but anyway, I have an XT20 and XT30 and would happily get another XT30 so I don't have to swap lenses when I grab a 40mm or 28mm equiv and am running out the door.
The Q2 is everything I want in a camera. I am a one-camera-one-lens photographer. I can confidently use 1/15 second shutter speed to effect motion blur while maintaining sharp focus of stationary objects. The camera has the ability to pre-crop in the viewfinder, simulating several focal lengths (there are adequate megapixels for cropping). I set it for 35mm. Weather-sealing, excellent build quality, simplicity and esthetics contribute to confidence in foul-weather shooting, and a high level of user experience. Is it worth the price? Of course.
I loved your review because you confirmed my decision to buy the Q just as the Q2 was coming out. My reasons were 1. The price, since the price of the Q dropped to around $4000 or less, and 2. I didn't want to deal with 47 MP. Even when one crops to a higher mm lens, the raw file is still full frame or 25 MP for the Q and 47 MP for the Q2. One improvement that others have mentioned is the viewfinder is noticeably better which is OLED in the Q2 than the Q. I haven't seen a Q2 myself. I will say that I wish the viewfinder had a better eye shade. Light can come in from the side, making it difficult to see the image. For me, $4000 was a splurge, but worth it. I love the camera.
Love my Q2! Just took it to a gig. I was at the back of the venue and still got some superb shots using the frame cropping!
Not to mention the best feature of this camera the leaf shutter lens
That alone is worth the price of the camera, for any group or full length with flash in daylight is priceless.
I did use the q really felt in love with that camera for that feature and a very quiet 🤫 shutter.
I appreciate your review and knowledge of the Leica brand. I am going for the original Q. I think I would like weather sealing, but I will not shoot in the rain. The Q is my next Leica. Thank you!
Sean
This will be Many people's gateway in the world of Leica. Starting with me.
Thanks for the review.
How are you enjoying your Q2?
The 47 mp sensor provides 30 mp at 35 mm and 15 mp at 50 mm, and that's a HUGE improvement over the Q. Everyday experience bears that out big time.
I disagree with you on resolution:
1. High resolution makes sense if you want more crop modes (and crop modes are good zoom replacements).
2. High resolution also eliminates the need for shift lenses (because you do lose some detail after correcting for converging verticals).
Also, the Q/2 is amazing even if you only shoot the 28mm focal length. Compare any DSLR with a 28/1.8 to the Q series and it will be at least twice as big. The A7 series, OTOH...
Anyway, I now look forward to your Panasonic S1 review. It never ends! :-)
Some people are totally obsessed with resolution and sharpness.. Thats all they look at. They base their opinion on cameras and lenses just by how sharp it can render.. Thats BS if you ask me
I understand Leica with the decision to go for high Mpix. The ability to crop to 35mm or 50mm with enough pixel left, is great. What they should do is, to go for a Q2r and a Q2s. One with a lot of Mpix and the other with the max possible ISO performance.
For me, this Q2 is very interesting. Also the price, if you compare it to something like the Rx1rII.
excellent and honest review. As owner of a Q2 I can only agree
Thanks Steve,
What camera is the best for low light stills in your opinion, currently I own a A9 and a omd Em1 mark ii,
I am looking for a change and consider SL, Q original, or SL2S..
What's your thoughts?, thanks
Frank from New Zealand
Well i own the Q2 and SL2. My opinion is not the same as yours for the Q2 in low light conditions. Maybe you did not have the new firmware version 2.00 when you did your review.
Can you please explain?
Has it significantly changed?
If yes in what way, thanks
Would be great to hear from you, Gilles!
@@GERrevolt yea Giles chime in to expand more bro.
COME HERE AND EXPLAIN YOURSELF
I brought a used Q two years ago before the Q2 came out and used it as a travel camera for many occasions. I don't find myself wanting / needing the Q2 for its higher megapixel counts except for situations where I need to crop to 50+mm equivalent. The original Q is a very capable camera with the same 28mm summilux and you can get it now with a very reasonable price from 2.5k to 3k USD. As a Fujifilm X100T owner, I don't think the lens offered by Fujifilm at the X100 level is in anyway close to 28mm Summilux. I still have my Fujifilm but I only use it if I need to go into potentially dangerous areas. Although 28mm is enough for me, I really want to get a rangefinder now to get the full Leica manual focus experience. After leaving my film camera behind for a few years because it is hard to find quality film development shops in my area, I want to get back to that magical film shooting experience. I think the Lecia M is the answer in this digital age and the M 240 is not that expensive now.
I just wished it had a joystick. It makes so much sense with fast wide angle lenses.
Hi ISO is not preferable anyway. This is not because of noise but because of dynamic range (which drops inline with ISO increase, killing of all the quality of your expensive sensor/camera! Use primes 1.x.
I have never (or very rarely) been in a situation where I needed ISO 6400... Catch the light, not the darkness 😊
100%, that's also a benefit of the 28mm lens, even at wide apertures you still get plenty of depth of field
Wish i seen this review before trading my q for the q2.
How is it now after the update for the Q2 is out ?
if you wanna sell it, I'm here :D
When looking through the EVF and using the 35mm crop, does the projected image appear as 35mm or as a 28mm with cropped frame lines? I can see that in the rear monitor it appears as the latter.
Pretty sure Full frame sensors will go to 80mp within the next year or 2.. That's basically just 4 20mp M4/3 sensors stuck together
No. They don't do full frame. They have 50mp medium format and announcing a 100mp medium format this month.
@@bxlgotham6566 What are you trying to say?
Go and buy a used original Q if you can find a good one. Leica Q has much better ISO handling and low light performance than the Q2. 24 mp is huge, even for croppings. Take the Q and spend the rest of your 2000 bucks to a tropic vacation 😎
Excellent advertising for the Leica SL !
More seriously you show very well that the best is the enemy of the good.
The Summilux 28 mm f/1.7 ASPH alone could cost at least 3.000$. The camera costs 5.000$. So it is not really expensive.
The M mount Leica rangefinder cameras are not weather resistant. The Leica Q2 it is. No fear of rain.
I like the native ISO 50. It is the lowest native ISO of full frame as far as I know. It should offer great dynamic range control with raw files.
The mechanical shutter speed 1/2000th sec isn't nice. The electronic shutter speed 1/40.000th sec is impressive but rolling shutter should be a problem.
The flash synchronization 1/500th sec is good but the similar Sony RX1 series has a much faster leaf shutter.
If only you could keep the 28 summilux when the time comes to upgrade, and just spend $2000 on the new body, then yes, it would be inexpensive. That said, I think it's a very good camera and will be buying it.
J J I suspect that like the Sony RX1 the lens continues inside the body in order for the camera to be small.
vs the GR3 ?
Refreshingly good description of the Leica Q2..
I appreciate your positivity... :)
Soooo, you are not going to keep it??
I'm Picking one up next year
excellent review. but I never had a better low light camera!
That's the first time I've seen someone say the Q2 is great in low light. That encourages me greatly.
Where did you get the ring to put over the viewfinder at 11:22? Do you have a link? Also what is it called?
That was not a Q2
Fully agree on your ISO and MPix comment! So let's see what the Zeiss ZX1 will bring to us. Looking forward to... Cheers Axel
Wish it would switch to 35mm lens instead of macro closeup option ..
you mean like a zoom lens?
8:11 my hat's off to you sir.
Leaving aside image quality and field-of-view questions, the one thing I WILL say is that the Q/Q2 are NOT small, pocketable cameras. Of course standards vary, but if I want something with at least an APS-C sensor that is not much effort to take with me (e.g. put in a coat pocket) the X100 models, even a CL with an 18/23 mm (to say nothing of the GRiii) fit the bill to a much better degree.
Thanks for this. I now know this camera is not for me. The lowlight capability is necessary for me.
You can buy 1000 coffee makers or 10 refrigerators or 8 washer/dryer or even 10 year old BMW for the price of the Q - but you should get the Q instead :)))
May we're getting a Q2s very soon
Nice real life review. I am deeply into Nikon Z7 and DSLRS with an extensive line of lenses so will not be going in that direction. But for someone who is well heeled and starting out, it could be a good street photo or vacation camera. A longer lens such as 35mm would have been better in my opinion.
If in New York City, LA or Chicago, you might want to place a bit of gaffer tape over the 🔴 logo.
The thing is You can buy Q1 on Ebay for close to £2000 , so they don’t hold their value that good. And it might be the case with Q2 as well.
Pavel Subert thats probably because the Q2 was announced... when the q2 Wasnt announced it cost around 3200€ .. so when you warn to Get a Q i guess now is the Time ;)
on the fence for the Monochrome one
I don't understand why the quality is so bad for a full frame cam is it because of all the mpx? I use to shoot with different cam and few months ago I did some concert shooting with a G85 and 15mm f1.7 micro 43 sensor and performed better, strange
The quality is superb. Its just when you get into ISO 12800 and up that it goes to mush, an area where no M 43 can travel. This is a superb camera, just not a crazy low light camera. Thanks.
Can i ask your THE MOST FAVORITE camera?
Great review，Thanks！
Yes.
Thanks! You're helping me a lot! I will take the q-p :-)
...yes it is... for those who have caviar for lunch and enjoy their weekends in Europe...
Whats that intro song called?
It is important to note that the metering is apparently based on the focal length crop used. Therefore, cropping on a computer after shooting at 28 mm is NOT equivalent to using the crop on camera. In some lighting situations, it could make a substantial difference.
Wouldn't the DMG files be the same? Damn I have a lot to learn about photography.
It would have been if it was a 35 lens :(
You can use a 35 mm crop and still have 30 mb left of the sensor, so it's also a 35mm camera without problem.
@@jankarlsson8341 not the same at all, it crops.
@@TheNanofiber Whatever, you get the same focal lenght and sensor size as a 35 mm. But if you want to go into semantics, sure.
@@jankarlsson8341 not really the same sensor size if you crop in
@@jankarlsson8341 Not correct. Perspective and DOF are different. Of course it will be useable anyway, but a real 35 will give you a visibly different picture.
The SL 2 will be our end of this year like the original I’m saving every dollar 😀😅😅
Should I upgrade from Q1?
I have. Purely for the weatherproofing. The extra pixels and Fotos App link-up are a bonus.
jaspal singh cause not everyone shoots sports.
great review, thanks
Everyday camera? Errr.... how many kidneys do people have for everyday cameras? lol
Wow that sensor is awful. Why bother with full frame if you can't low-light?!
I'm wondering the same thing. What's going on here. I would guess pixel pitch is hurting. Full frame isn't inherently better at low light. Low light is improved by reducing noise through more space between each pixel on the sensor. Higher megapixel count is going to hurt that drastically, which is why Fuji went medium format digital with GFX 50S. That said, not sure if pixel pitch is better on RX1 R2, or Sony just has a superior set of features on that particular sensor.
It’s a Panasonic sensor though don’t forget to say that
Are you in Amsterdam ? -)
Eelco Henk - I heard him say he was in Phoenix which is in Arizona, USA.
This is my grail street camera, but I'll never be able to afford it haha
$4,500 camera probably means that there are places you shouldn’t be walking around with that around your neck
Chris Jorge makes an excellent on point!
Not really.. just keep an eye on it.
@@razbiton173 you don't think muggings happen?
@@plowmanjoe not if you take good care of your stuff. Hold it hard lol
Nobody knows how much that camera is...
A perfect everyday camera will hav a good full frame sensor with that amazing lens, good battery life, weather sealing, great AF even in low light and a price tag below USD1200… which will never exist. Q2 is a great camera, but not sth u call perfect, at that price range and that low light performace.. nope. It's more niche than the RX1/X100 series..
Everybody knows that tittle belongs to Ricoh GR series
yes...i use my ricoh for landscapes in colour...pretty radical.
if you like getting mugged everyday.
Should have came out with a 50mm version.
@@weisserth A 50mm is not about crop, it's about compression, perspective and also subject isolation.
@@sveeny Compression has nothing to do with MM it has to do with distance from focal plane to subject.
@@webdesign6776 That is certainly true. But if you take a photo with a 28mm you need to crop significantly more, lose resolution and have significantly less subject separation too if you decide to take your (for example) portrait from the same distance as you would with a 35mm. So with the 35mm you get more compression while still filling the frame with your subject and retaining more subject separation at the same time.
Tobias Weisserth however, at 50mm the sensor area you are using is about APS-C in size. It’s a great option but if 50mm is your main FOV, the Q2 doesn’t make that much sense anymore.
@@weisserth why would you pay almost 5k for a 15mp crop sensor camera?
Why even try high ISO's when you know they're no good?
Mort Schubert I know what you mean, usually I set a limit on my ISO knowing where it’s going to start introducing noise and then set auto ISO and I’m good. Everything else can be adjusted using shutter speed and aperture
@@DrErickLopez, that makes full sense to me.
Why even try that? Well ... because sometimes there‘s no other choice? With my camera and a f/1.7 lens I often have to go to ISO8000, and a grainy image is better than a blurry one.
@@Halbmond, if you really have to take that image, for sure!
I love grain.
Disappointed about the quality. Only used couple of times and the power cannot be turned on while the camera body turns hot.
Thar camera costs about $5000 Canadian, so NOT a good choice for an everyday camera! You could buy a Fuji X100F and have anough left over to travel to Europe to take some pics for the price of a Q2
If you can afford it's a good everyday camera. Could also rent one.
You only live once Jim. Get whatever pleases you. Me. Q2 & SL2.
@@jimmason8502 I took my q2 to Europe. And Iceland. And Costa Rica. And Alaska. And the Arctic Circle. And…
The Sony has awful colors
No problem in post production... So much more capable than the Q though, which is why I chose it over the Q... Especially in low light capabilities and the Exmor R back lit and Bionz X are among the best sensor/ processor in the business. The Zeiss Sonnar is incredible too
most serious photographers will post process their photos.
I find the colours from my A7 iii fine! Certainly not “awful”
It is if its only cost 500- 1000 USD :)
The lens alone costs more than that.
The perfect camera is among A7siii, XH2, A7000, EM1iii, GH6, RX100VII.
A 5000$ camera for vacation and street photography...
Thats Correct.
No....the perfect everyday camera to me is the Nikon Coolpix A....APSC...28mm 2.8 lens ...Nikon D7000 processor...and it really fits in your jean pockets,
Way to expensive
*too
it's all relative
Lolololololol
...who is going to buy 3 Fuji camera ??? So dumb comparance
I own GFX 50S, XH1, XT20, XT30.. So yeah. Kk.
It's different bodies u own... And what I said is 3 same body... Understand what u reply for.. Cheers
@@RAMSEYSPENCER That's not what you said, but anyway, I have an XT20 and XT30 and would happily get another XT30 so I don't have to swap lenses when I grab a 40mm or 28mm equiv and am running out the door.
He was making a simple comparison to give it price perspective. Do better at commenting.
The 28 mm lens is a no no
I would prefer 35mm myself. However, 28mm is useful when traveling in Asia where things are much closer due to lack of space.
@@ousi00 Yeah same for a lot of European countries. Especially in older cities. Things are so densely build. 28mm on FF is perfect for that.
I love the 28 mm myself
$5k for a point and shoot.
Have you tried one? lol
Having a fixed lens doesn't make it a point and shoot...
Yes! And it’s absolutely GLORIOUS.