This has been discussed a lot, but I would appreciate advice for my own situation. I'm considering the Q/Q2 essentially for the 28mm lens to be used without cropping. This will be alongside a separate setup with a 50mm lens. The type of photography is city scenes (broader than 'street') - an example would be an upcoming period in Padua, Vicenza and Verona where the goal would be to photography those places and people in those spaces. I understand some of the technical upgrades in the Q2, but the lens is the same. If I'm not interested in the cropping flexibility of the Q2, are there good reasons why I should still consider the Q2 over the Q? My printer only goes up to A2, so either camera would be fine for the largest image I could or would produce.Thanks for your thoughts

Others will likely chime in.Apart from the much bigger sensor the other differences are: weather proofing, moving to a different configuration of the on/off switch, moving to a 3 button from 5 button control setup on the back of the camera.You could start with a Q and if you like it, later trade to a Q2.

My answer for this is the same as any this or that question. Buy the latest model/technology you can afford. If you can, buy the Q2 otherwise, buy the Q. The Q2 ismuchmore camera. You printer isn't the only place you can utilize the increased image size capability of the Q2

SuvoMitra wrote:This has been discussed a lot, but I would appreciate advice for my own situation. I'm considering the Q/Q2 essentially for the 28mm lens to be used without cropping. This will be alongside a separate setup with a 50mm lens. The type of photography is city scenes (broader than 'street') - an example would be an upcoming period in Padua, Vicenza and Verona where the goal would be to photography those places and people in those spaces. I understand some of the technical upgrades in the Q2, but the lens is the same. If I'm not interested in the cropping flexibility of the Q2, are there good reasons why I should still consider the Q2 over the Q? My printer only goes up to A2, so either camera would be fine for the largest image I could or would produce.Thanks for your thoughtsSome good suggestions here already. All I'll say is that if you can't take decent pictures with the Q, a Q2 won't help you much. Get what you can easily afford and enjoy it.Mike

Edward48 wrote:SuvoMitra wrote:This has been discussed a lot, but I would appreciate advice for my own situation. I'm considering the Q/Q2 essentially for the 28mm lens to be used without cropping. This will be alongside a separate setup with a 50mm lens. ........... If I'm not interested in the cropping flexibility of the Q2, are there good reasons why I should still consider the Q2 over the Q? My printer only goes up to A2, so either camera would be fine for the largest image I could or would produce.Thanks for your thoughtsSome good suggestions here already. All I'll say is that if you can't take decent pictures with the Q, a Q2 won't help you much. Get what you can easily afford and enjoy it.MikeTrue. If you can't take good pictures with the Q, maybe pottery would be a better plan....:-D

DenverSteve wrote:Edward48 wrote:SuvoMitra wrote:This has been discussed a lot, but I would appreciate advice for my own situation. I'm considering the Q/Q2 essentially for the 28mm lens to be used without cropping. This will be alongside a separate setup with a 50mm lens. ........... If I'm not interested in the cropping flexibility of the Q2, are there good reasons why I should still consider the Q2 over the Q? My printer only goes up to A2, so either camera would be fine for the largest image I could or would produce.Thanks for your thoughtsSome good suggestions here already. All I'll say is that if you can't take decent pictures with the Q, a Q2 won't help you much. Get what you can easily afford and enjoy it.MikeTrue. If you can't take good pictures with the Q, maybe pottery would be a better plan....:-DI loved pottery at college. It's my back-up plan.

Le Chef wrote:Others will likely chime in.Apart from themuch bigger sensorthe other differences are: weather proofing, moving to a different configuration of the on/off switch, moving to a 3 button from 5 button control setup on the back of the camera.You could start with a Q and if you like it, later trade to a Q2.You meant resolution? The sensor size is actually the same

I had the Q and now own the Q2.Could have easily "lived" with the Q. The higher resolution of the Q2 is a nice thing to have, 30Mpx at 35mm equivalent and F2.2 is nice ... but this wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me.What drove me potty was the unbelievably bad implementation of the continuous shutter, I would either have to look at the camera from the top, then use the other hand and carefully turn the on/off switch. Whenever I tried this in a single-hand operation, I would sometimes, not always, get straight into serial shutter mode ... then turn the switch back, again with both hands ...Sounds like a first world problem? Maybe it is, but this switch spoilt the otherwise fine experience of the Q.Add the dust issues widely reported where people had duct tape over the microphone to keep the sensor safe. Not my cup of tea to treat a camera like it cannot even take a feeble hit??The icing on the cake for me was the EV button, LOOOOONG PRESS - and you can chose what you want the "alternative" menu to be. In my case the default is ISO, you can change this without taking your eye off the camera ...That high res sensor also not a bad thing to have of course, not a deal-breaker. But you knowHandheld. I am confident that should I have had another chance - or two - I would have gotten better AF, so the crop for illustration purposes only.Good luck with your decision!Deed

DenverSteve wrote:… The Q2 ismuchmore camera.This is the bit I’m trying to understand. I agree with the benefits of latest tech, but I don’t see huge upgrades discussed apart from the sensor resolution. The EVF might be one thing but I currently have one camera with a 5 million dot one and another with a 2.36 one. The difference is there but not great except in action shooting (where refresh rate is probably more important than resolution). Weather sealing can be useful, but I’ve got by without much for years of outdoor photography in the UK.If versatility (cropping) is a requirement, the Q2 clearly is much more camera, but is this true for someone who is switching to another camera when they need tighter framing?I’m interested in the Q because a fast wide lens like this combined with such a compact body is still not on offer elsewhere. There is the Sony A7c and a 28/2, but I really disliked that body when I got to handle it.thanks for your thoughts.

DenverSteve wrote:Edward48 wrote:SuvoMitra wrote:This has been discussed a lot, but I would appreciate advice for my own situation. I'm considering the Q/Q2 essentially for the 28mm lens to be used without cropping. This will be alongside a separate setup with a 50mm lens. ........... If I'm not interested in the cropping flexibility of the Q2, are there good reasons why I should still consider the Q2 over the Q? My printer only goes up to A2, so either camera would be fine for the largest image I could or would produce.Thanks for your thoughtsSome good suggestions here already. All I'll say is that if you can't take decent pictures with the Q, a Q2 won't help you much. Get what you can easily afford and enjoy it.MikeTrue. If you can't take good pictures with the Q, maybe pottery would be a better plan....:-DPottery is really hard

Hmmm … these are really useful to know. The S/C issue reminds me of the original X100 (the button on the side). Also, the dust issue is also worth thinking about on a fixed lens unit. I assume all these niggles were eliminated in the Q2?I don’t have anything against the resolution of the Q2. My computer can manage fine, but I’m not sure it’s necessary unless cropping a lot. I had a Nikon Z7 for a while and did landscapes with it. The images were wonderful to look at on the computer, but I felt I got too caught up in the pixel level while post-processing and sometimes also when out shooting. I also noticed others with high res sensors gradually got lazy with framing and filtering. The quality of work went down as IQ went up.

SuvoMitra wrote:DenverSteve wrote:… The Q2 ismuchmore camera.This is the bit I’m trying to understand. I agree with the benefits of latest tech, but I don’t see huge upgrades discussed apart from the sensor resolution. The EVF might be one thing but I currently have one camera with a 5 million dot one and another with a 2.36 one. The difference is there but not great except in action shooting (where refresh rate is probably more important than resolution). Weather sealing can be useful, but I’ve got by without much for years of outdoor photography in the UK.If versatility (cropping) is a requirement, the Q2 clearly is much more camera, but is this true for someone who is switching to another camera when they need tighter framing?I’m interested in the Q because a fast wide lens like this combined with such a compact body is still not on offer elsewhere. There is the Sony A7c and a 28/2, but I really disliked that body when I got to handle it.thanks for your thoughts.My opinion only - Don't compare Leicas to other cameras you have or other cameras on the market. The other cameras will always "win" due to price point. Leica cameras are to be enjoyed for their manufacture, aesthetics, function and enjoyment (form and function). The A7c will always provide unsurpassed quality. That doesn't mean the Leica is less but, when compared to the Sony price, the Sony will win - for most buyers - because of that price. You shoot the Leica because you want to shoot the Leica and (primarily with the M camera/lenses) the final result is a bit different (better to many of us) than anything else. I would never buy a Leica because you rationalize that it brings you something you don't get with what you already have.  The Q2 WILL allow you to shoot (with the same lens) images you can crop in by 50% more than the Q without affecting the final image quality.  That, to me, is where the Q2 magic comes from.  If you can get close to ALL your anticipated images (impossible) then there's no difference.  If, however, you are like the rest of us, you will be able to shoot the Q2 and pull fantastic images from it similar to shooting a 65-75mm lens.If you have a Nikon/Canon/Sony... that you love the results of, the Leica won't change that. It may enhance getting to the final product but likely won't radically improve upon it. If you want to go fast, buy a Mustang. If you want to go fast in a Ferrari, buy a Ferrari - but you won't go faster, just get there differently. To me, you don't rationalize a Leica - you just buy it. It will get you great photos but not if you (and your wife/husband are deciding whether to get braces for the kids or go to Disney World). It's not a logical decision, it's the decision you make when - you want to shoot Leica.If you want a small, compact, lightweight camera that allows for great imagery (depending on the photographer) then there are almost limitless options out there - almost all cheaper. Most importantly, remember, NO camera will make great images. That is the responsibility of the loose-nut behind the camera. No Q2 or A7c or Canon, Nikon.... will make anyone a better photographer. It will only enhance, or change, the experience getting you to what you can pull from it.

SuvoMitra wrote:Hmmm … these are really useful to know. The S/C issue reminds me of the original X100 (the button on the side). Also, the dust issue is also worth thinking about on a fixed lens unit. I assume all these niggles were eliminated in the Q2?I don’t have anything against the resolution of the Q2. My computer can manage fine, but I’m not sure it’s necessary unless cropping a lot. I had a Nikon Z7 for a while and did landscapes with it. The images were wonderful to look at on the computer, but I felt I got too caught up in the pixel level while post-processing and sometimes also when out shooting. I also noticed others with high res sensors gradually got lazy with framing and filtering. The quality of work went down as IQ went up.Yes, the dust issue and the sealing has been eliminated/improved on the Q2.There are also some interesting things you can do with the Q2 like in-camera time-lapse movie that are being converted in-camera????A fun thing for sure, but it's there like the better viewfinder, the better battery and the better UI ...Price is also "better"that one thing that might spoil it for the odd user ...Deed

Just read article about the AI tools from Adobe and Topaz that double size (megapixels) of images. Amazing.  Save plenty money with used Q.  And crop away in post.PS. I SHOOT WITH Q

Thank you all for your comments. I found a Q that looks to be in barely used condition. It comes with a box and accessories that look almost new. It may be one that was bought and upgraded soon after. It's from a good dealer and the price is on the upper end of the ones that are currently available.There is more choice in Q2's in excellent condition, but the prices make me think I'd rather just get a new one. A pristine Q2 Reporter went through my local shop a few weeks ago. There aren't many buyers for something like this in my small city, so they offered it to me at what I now understand to be close to a £1K saving on the going rate for the best specimens from good Leica dealers. This is what made me start thinking about Q/Q2. By the time I'd started to make the cognitive adjustment needed to get serious, the Reporter had gone.Anyhow, I've ordered the Q I found and it's arriving tomorrow. I'll tape the mic, speaker and ports in the side flap. I'll find a screen protector and I'll wait until I've handled the camera to decide whether I want a thumb rest or a case or grip, etc. Any suggesteions on such things would be gratefully received.I've had a handed down M2, so this is not my first proper Leica. The only other digital thing with a red dot I've had was a D-Lux4. Here are a couple of photos I took with that camera more than a decade ago that are resonating today:I'm worried that I'm crossing a line ...... and this might be where I'm headed.

I think the choice you made was wise. At half the price of the Q2, you’ve acquired a decent portion of what the Q2 has to offer. Provided it’s sensor is dust free and doesn’t require a trip to Slo Mo New Jersey for cleaning, you’ll have tons of fun.No, you can’t deep crop, but I doubt that is your priority. You’re likely to lose less on the Q if you decide it doesn’t work out for you as you’re in it much less.Regarding the issue with the on/off switch moving to af continuous, place a small/thin grommet beneath the switch. It prevents it from floating into continuous territory.You can also apply a small piece of gaffers tape over the diopter adjustment wheel, once you’ve dialed it in to your need. Those really were the only two issues I felt I wanted to address.Enjoy the camera and most important, give yourself some time with the camera. It produces some beautiful images with that lens, even if it’s only 24mp and won’t accommodate deep cropping.