I've been thinking about buying a Q2. However, I was stopped in my tracks when I read, and I quote, "It's JPEG files are some of the absolute worst I've seen in a modern digital camera." This sentence was taken from Dan Bracaglia, of DPREVIEW, who reviewed the Q2. My question is this. Why hasn't anyone who bought this camera mentioned the bad color in camera JPEG? Also, talked about the blown highlights, which I can see in the sample photos? These problems are unforgivable in a $5,000 camera, as it is in a $400 point and shoot.

leica35 wrote:I've been thinking about buying a Q2. However, I was stopped in my tracks when I read, and I quote, "It's JPEG files are some of the absolute worst I've seen in a modern digital camera." This sentence was taken from Dan Bracaglia, of DPREVIEW, who reviewed the Q2. My question is this. Why hasn't anyone who bought this camera mentioned the bad color in camera JPEG? Also, talked about the blown highlights, which I can see in the sample photos? These problems are unforgivable in a $5,000 camera, as it is in a $400 point and shoot.What??I have been on dpreview since 2002 (different screen name at the time) and must say that nothing beats a good old rumour. Copy and paste from one generation of reviewers to the next.I typically shoot RAW as in near always, but have on occassion shot jpgs with the Q/Q2 to quickly send some pics via the Leica App and WhatsApp. Here are a couple of jpgs ...WITHOUT WB ADJUSTMENTS!!!Dunno, I also have some Q2 jpgs but would need to do a search. I could not find a difference in jpg rendering from those 2 cameras anyway.But don't take my word for it! Dan Bracaglia has of course more credibility than me ...Q2Deed

In the original review, the sentence reads “For instance, its JPEG profiles are some of the absolute worst I've seen in a modern digital camera.” Was your misquotation deliberate?As a Q2 user, I find that the JPEGs stand comparison with those from my Fuji cameras which are allegedly as good as it gets. I wonder whether Leica have made changes in one of their updates as this comment seems inexplicable (though like Deed, I recognise that Dan Bracaglia’s credibility is rather greater than mine).

Thanks for your quick reply. It appears that you are completely satisfied with the Q2. I hope I hear from more people who use the camera.

Well, it was more like old tired eyes than anything deliberate on part.  You may be correct, Leica made changes with an update. Like Deeds, you appear to be completely satisfied with the Q2. To see how much users like the Q2 is exactly why I have asked for comments. Thanks for your input.

I’ve never produced any jpegs with my Q2, but I do know the DNG images are stellar.

You, like two other users, appear completely satisfied with the Q2. Everyone's shooting style is different. I like to look at the jpeg with each shot and then decided if I have captured the correct image, in relationship to the frame. I never crop, which may be something I will have to do if I buy the Q2. Why I would prefer 35mm as opposed to a 28mm lens. But that's just me. I appreciate your comments, Le Chef.

leica35 wrote:You, like two other users, appear completely satisfied with the Q2. Everyone's shooting style is different. I like to look at the jpeg with each shot and then decided if I have captured the correct image, in relationship to the frame. I never crop, which may be something I will have to do if I buy the Q2. Why I would prefer 35mm as opposed to a 28mm lens. But that's just me. I appreciate your comments, Le Chef.You can use the built-in 35mm crop which appears to be equivalent to a 35/2.1 lens. 30 megapixel left to play with isn't too shabby either.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that I read on DEPREVIEW the crop will only show up in the on-camera JPEG and not in the DNG. If I want a 35mm look I will need to crop the JPEG that comes from processing the RAW or use the in-camera JPEG that is already cropped. Since I want to use the DNG to create the JPEG, I may have a problem, as I understand it.

Everything has compromise. With the Q2, you get a fantastic lens, build quality, decent performance and stellar raw image output.The sensor is noted for having troubles managing highlights. And the jpeg quality is a very subjective topic. If you want tons of customizations (controls, handling, image processing), then this is not the camera for you. Keep in mind, it’s not exactly new tech. Expensive, yes. But Leica is a luxury brand and the some of the cost premium is built in.Overall, it’s up to you whether you can live with the limitations. I enjoy mine, but I also use a Nikon. I work with the Leica knowing and working within its limitations. It’s a great camera for me. Both have their place, but I’d choose the Nikon if I could only have one.

Thanks for your candid comments, MJW3. "I'd choose a Nikon if I could only have one." This tells me there are potential problems with this camera. But, having never used a Q2, I can't really tell if I would like it. I'll give this camera a lot of thought before I make the decision to buy or not. But everyone's comments have been much appreciated by me.In addition, I'll just say that I very much like the 16-megapixel X-Vario. I have thought about using enlargement software to make poster size pictures, instead of buying a large megapixel camera.  But it's come to my attention that this software is still in the development stage. In other words, it makes good large photos, but not as good as a camera with lots of megapixels.

I’d choose the Nikon because it is much more flexible and capable -  a fast and do-all camera system.In my opinion, the Q2 is a great companion camera that you can take anywhere, but not an “only camera”. Again: my opinion. All depends on your use case.Good luck with your decision.

leica35 wrote:I've been thinking about buying a Q2. However, I was stopped in my tracks when I read, and I quote, "It's JPEG files are some of the absolute worst I've seen in a modern digital camera." This sentence was taken from Dan Bracaglia, of DPREVIEW, who reviewed the Q2. My question is this. Why hasn't anyone who bought this camera mentioned the bad color in camera JPEG? Also, talked about the blown highlights, which I can see in the sample photos? These problems are unforgivable in a $5,000 camera, as it is in a $400 point and shoot.I read it on the internet, so it must be trueLike others who are not reviewers but actually take pictures with their cameras, I would say I have rarely had issues with Auto WB getting it wrong. And, if anyone says their camera is perfect in all lighting, they are exaggerating; IOW, nothing at all wrong with the Auto WB, but I also use the built in presets for daylight, etc (and use profiles they are very powerful)As to jpgs, the Q2 has colors that are sharp, warm and with a depth of color I could not get with my Fuji jpgs. Some have called the colors flat, and perhaps compared to some jpg recipes (like Fuji Velvia) they may be. But they are "rich" for want of a better term.However, even if you want to just shoot jpgs, a quick "autocorrect" on your phone will wake them up... if you think it's needed.Where the real magic comes in is when you grab one of those DNG files and pop them into your favorite editor... in a few seconds the richness just starts to pop out. (Capture One is best for me, DXO does some great stuff and I've even done some in LR)Lastly, let me go back to your first statement "I've been thinking of buying a Q2"... I did that for a very long time also. Then I got one on a 2 week trial; it never went back. My advice - gulp at the price if you need to, but just order it. It is my "desert island camera" and the best all around camera I've ever had. (but it is a gateway drug and I am now invested in an SL2 with a few expensive lenses to round out the kit... but to be very clear, even though the SL2 is the new and shiny toy, the Q2 will always go out the door with me)Here are a couple of jpgs straight OOC. Mid day, bright sun so harsh light - how do they look to you?

How old is the review? I heard a firmware update fixed AWB on the Q2. Regardless, I've switched to just using Daylight WB or grey card for all my cameras (Leica, Canon, Nikon), as it gives me consistent color across all my photos in the session as opposed to ever changing WB with AWB. But then I generally shoot raw and not JPEG.Blown highlights? Given there is a histogram in the EVF, any blown highlights would be user error. I think sometimes people fixate too much on some of the details and lose sight of the overall photo.

leica35 wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that I read on DEPREVIEW the crop will only show up in the on-camera JPEG and not in the DNG. If I want a 35mm look I will need to crop the JPEG that comes from processing the RAW or use the in-camera JPEG that is already cropped. Since I want to use the DNG to create the JPEG, I may have a problem, as I understand it.On the very rare occasion that I use in camera crop, the DNG when put into LR is still cropped but you can uncrop it back to the original 28mm if you wish - and obviously any other crop you might decide onGoing back to your original question, another poster a few weeks ago asked about buying a Q2, my answer is still the same - it’s the best photography purchase I’ve ever made. I never leave the house without it, I can’t say the same for my Nikon Z kit as good as it is.

leica35 wrote:Thanks for your candid comments, MJW3. "I'd choose a Nikon if I could only have one." This tells me there are potential problems with this camera. But, having never used a Q2, I can't really tell if I would like it. I'll give this camera a lot of thought before I make the decision to buy or not. But everyone's comments have been much appreciated by me.There aren’t potential problems with the Q2. You obviously came here with an agenda which was NOT to glean any positive information on the Q2. I you had, you would have read the other 99% of glowing accolades throughout the internet and herein. It appears you made up your mind prior to your second posting in this thread and used it as troll-bait (the troll baiting everyone else) so you could continue with a posting about the Q2.  Any problems the Q2 has are with loose-nuts behind the EVF.To the others - Please don’t feed this troll.-Don’t get bent out of shape, it’s just my educated option on.Steve

leica35 wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that I read on DEPREVIEW the crop will only show up in the on-camera JPEG and not in the DNG. If I want a 35mm look I will need to crop the JPEG that comes from processing the RAW or use the in-camera JPEG that is already cropped. Since I want to use the DNG to create the JPEG, I may have a problem, as I understand it.Some software reads the crop and some other doesn't. You are correct as in the jpgs are the ones that show the crop whereas the dngs are saved in full resolution.I was merely making a point with regards to Social Media etc where you could upload your cropped jpg ...Deed

koweb wrote:leica35 wrote:I've been thinking about buying a Q2. However, I was stopped in my tracks when I read, and I quote, "It's JPEG files are some of the absolute worst I've seen in a modern digital camera." This sentence was taken from Dan Bracaglia, of DPREVIEW, who reviewed the Q2. My question is this. Why hasn't anyone who bought this camera mentioned the bad color in camera JPEG? Also, talked about the blown highlights, which I can see in the sample photos? These problems are unforgivable in a $5,000 camera, as it is in a $400 point and shoot.I read it on the internet, so it must be trueLike others who are not reviewers but actually take pictures with their cameras, I would say I have rarely had issues with Auto WB getting it wrong. And, if anyone says their camera is perfect in all lighting, they are exaggerating; IOW, nothing at all wrong with the Auto WB, but I also use the built in presets for daylight, etc (and use profiles they are very powerful)As to jpgs, the Q2 has colors that are sharp, warm and with a depth of color I could not get with my Fuji jpgs. Some have called the colors flat, and perhaps compared to some jpg recipes (like Fuji Velvia) they may be. But they are "rich" for want of a better term.However, even if you want to just shoot jpgs, a quick "autocorrect" on your phone will wake them up... if you think it's needed.Where the real magic comes in is when you grab one of those DNG files and pop them into your favorite editor... in a few seconds the richness just starts to pop out. (Capture One is best for me, DXO does some great stuff and I've even done some in LR)Lastly, let me go back to your first statement "I've been thinking of buying a Q2"... I did that for a very long time also. Then I got one on a 2 week trial; it never went back. My advice - gulp at the price if you need to, but just order it. It is my "desert island camera" and the best all around camera I've ever had. (but it is a gateway drug and I am now invested in an SL2 with a few expensive lenses to round out the kit... but to be very clear, even though the SL2 is the new and shiny toy, the Q2 will always go out the door with me)Here are a couple of jpgs straight OOC. Mid day, bright sun so harsh light - how do they look to you?Agreed. Also in particular with regards to Capture OneThe helmet pic could even get away as a professional shot??No, wait ...Deed

leica35 wrote:I've been thinking about buying a Q2. However, I was stopped in my tracks when I read, and I quote, "It's JPEG files are some of the absolute worst I've seen in a modern digital camera." This sentence was taken from Dan Bracaglia, of DPREVIEW, who reviewed the Q2.I understand your concerns as I shoot RAW+ JPEG and I like the jpeg images to look good too.The Leica Q2 review by DPREVIEW was done almost 4 years ago. I believe one of the keys that contributed to the less eye pleasing jpeg outputs back then was the strong cool temperature biased AWB, and even worst, it could be somehow inconsistent under mixed or artificial lights.However, the AWB is now very reliable after the last firmware update ( although Leica didn't mention anything) . AWB will no longer bias to very cool temperature in most situations, if not all. If warmer tone is preferred or you want something else, you can always dial in the temperature or customize it through grey card. I found that the SOOC images are rich and pop. Leica Q2 doesn't have the film sim recipe control like Fujifilm, so it may be less fun or exciting in that regard, but I still found SOOC images excellent.Tendency of blown highlights was also one of the more common complaints on the internet.But Leica also addressed that issue through the last firmware update. It introduced Highlight weighted metering.I personally don't need to use the highlighted weight metering often as long as I pay attention to the blinkies and make the best exposure decision for the scene manually. I found that way yields the optimum SOOC jpeg results. And in the situations of needing to recover dark area in PP, it is usually not a problem and easy.To further spice up the jpeg outputs, Leica also introduced iDR, and parameter adjustment to jpeg image properties.iDR is helpful to optimize the dark areas in high contrast scenes for jpeg. I am still experimenting which setting is the best. Auto is pretty much the go-to setting for most people, and for me initially. However, setting it to low or standard will maintain better contrast and saturation of the scene in SOOC jpegs, hence the pictures may pop a little more.Also adding +1 contrast to Vivid and Standard makes the SOOC jpeg look even better to me.Of course, you will always get the best out of the files by editing RAW as with all other brands.My question is this. Why hasn't anyone who bought this camera mentioned the bad color in camera JPEG? Also, talked about the blown highlights, which I can see in the sample photos? These problems are unforgivable in a $5,000 camera, as it is in a $400 point and shoot.

Nonicks, I want to thank you for your detailed and well thought out reply to these issues. It is clear from your Flickr account that you love photography. I especially liked your photos of Hawaii and Niagra Falls, the panorama with the crowd, the boat, and the rainbow. There were many good photos there.I am glad to hear that Leica has corrected the issues that were mentioned in the review by DPREVIEW. We rely on reviews in order to understand the issues of any new camera. Although this one is over four years old, it seems to me that there should have been an update to the original article telling people that Leica has corrected the problems. In any event, I have used the forum here to keep me informed of these issues, which have been explained to me by good people like yourself.I also want to thank the other people who have contributed to this thread. It is clear to me that photography has become a passion with all of us. In one sense, we are like a band of brothers. Happy shooting!