deednets wrote: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 ...DeedThanks Deed!To me, that speaks to the magic of the Q2... this is me walking around with a camera that does not make me look like I'm the official photographer for the event with 2 bazookas hanging around my neck... yet I can take snapshots that turn out wow. And that is all that this was - see something, turn and snap the photo.I've had companies and music bands use some of my shots on their social media and have had the hired pros admire the shots I've gotten. That's entirely new for me and I believe it's because there is always a camera with me - the Q2.I know you are doing wonderful work with yours as well; for any on the fence, just get a Q2 and I think you will also see how it can elevate your photos!

nonicks 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.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.Thanks for the info on iDR; I've not used it at all yet, but I will after this.I'm curious how it works; for example with Fuji X systems, they have DR100, 200 and 400. It seems the higher settings were good for JPGs but did nothing for RAW, maybe even was worse. Do you know how iDR is implemented? (I will do some searching as well if you don't). Thanks!

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.Yes and no.  The DNG is the full image.  The in camera JPG is the cropped version.  The crop data is encoded in the camera metadata.  I believe that Lightroom recognizes this crop and you can process only the cropped portion of the file.  You can revert back to the original DNG if you want.  In Capture One, you can find a script that will apply the crop to the DNG - although it is not default in C1, but the scripts are available.There is a little more subtle differences between the crop mode and the uncrossed.  I ran some test to verify this.  When you bring up the say 50 mm crop window, the camera uses that portion of the sensor for metering and I expect auto white balance.  So in reality it's like shooting a Leica M where the area outside the field of view is there for reference but does not go into the metering.  At least that is the way it works on the Q2M and I expect it is the same on the Q2.Since I'm not a fan of the 2x3 aspect ratio, much preferring a "squarer" aspect ratio like a 3x4 or 4x5, I am no more a fan of a 35 mm crop on the Q2 than the original 28 since my crops are normally done in post and squarer in aspect ratio. My Q2M has more than sufficient resolution for crops.  So I view it as a 4x5 aspect ratio camera with an angle of view of 69 degrees instead of the 76 of the 28 on a 2x3.  In focal length that would be an equivalent to a 31 mm.  The 35 mm crop on 2x3 would be equivalent to a 39 mm on the 4x5 with the same height and the 50 mm crop would equate to a 56 or slightly telephoto since the true normal lens (50 on a 2x3 frame is about 42 mm).So I prefer to do my own cropping from the 28 and consider the crops ore for JPEG shooters.  There is one minor exception and that is if I know I am going to crop it I will sometimes use the crop box to force the metering in a smaller area than the entire frame.  On the other hand the EC dial probably does that better.

Truman, I believed I had closed this post with my last thread. But your detailed reply on cropping with the Q2 intrigued me so much that I had to respond. I personally don't like to crop pictures unless I absolutely have to do it. I painstakingly frame the camera at 35 mm or more and then take the snapshot. But I'm beginning to see that the 28mm lens on the Q2 would force me to crop in order to reach 35mm. I find it interesting that you like to crop at 4x5, like the old 4x5 negatives. That format is certainly capable of taking beautiful pictures.  I like the 6x6 square format too. Maybe, in the future, camera companies will come out with a wider selection of aspect ratios. I hope Leica comes out with a Q3 that has a 35mm lens. I guess you'll need to crop until they make one that suits you.

leica35 wrote:Truman, I believed I had closed this post with my last thread. But your detailed reply on cropping with the Q2 intrigued me so much that I had to respond. I personally don't like to crop pictures unless I absolutely have to do it. I painstakingly frame the camera at 35 mm or more and then take the snapshot. But I'm beginning to see that the 28mm lens on the Q2 would force me to crop in order to reach 35mm. I find it interesting that you like to crop at 4x5, like the old 4x5 negatives. That format is certainly capable of taking beautiful pictures. I like the 6x6 square format too. Maybe, in the future, camera companies will come out with a wider selection of aspect ratios. I hope Leica comes out with a Q3 that has a 35mm lens. I guess you'll need to crop until they make one that suits you.I spent nearly 50 years not liking to "crop."  I was never dogmatic about it - but cropping cost image quality.  Why use medium format when you cropped to 35 mm size? I never was a disciple of the HCB, "thou shalt not crop" cult, although I did know a few.  They would even file the 35 mm film carrier out so they could show that they did not crop.  They could often be real bores.I would snip on the edges from time to time, but in general I would stick to a 6x7 on my RB or 4x5 on my field camera.  On my Leica M4, I would normally shave off the long edges to bring it to 30x24 or (5x4).  I really don't find the 2x3 all that appealing.  On the other hand I did have a  Bronica 6x6 for a time and found it liberating.  One did not have to worry about orientation, the orientation was determined when you made the print.  In reality if you been around long enough and taken enough images, you don't need to have grid lines for composition - it comes from experience.However,  with the Q2M with its 47 MP monochrome sensor there is little penalty in cropping a 47 MP monochrome sensor.  I try to get the best framing I can.  However, with a fixed lens camera it is not always an option not to crop. On the other hand like the square format of the old Bronica, there is something liberating with a fixed lens camera.   Today in the digital world - a circular sensor could be an option after all the image circle is round.  However, that would be too much a transition I suspect.Sigma produced a family of fixed lens cameras - the DP and DPQ series.  They were the same camera except with different focal length fixed lenses.  Personally that is what I would  like to see Leica do.  Maybe a Q3 with an option of either a 28 mm or 50 mm lens.  I'm not a huge fan of color so maybe wait until the Q3M if it there was a 50 version, pick one up.

Koweb, I want to thank you for commenting on this post. your comments were funny and informative. I now realize from posts like yours that Leica has corrected the problems with software updates. This was not mentioned by Dpreview, although it should have been, in my opinion. I saw in a later post that you ask a question concerning idr. I think you should address this question to Nonicks, who, probably, will respond to your inquiry.

The aspect ratio thing has always puzzled me with digital cameras.  Surely it must be a simple thing to implement user defined aspect ratios in software?  If it were, square would be first on my list…

Leica did come out with a firmware update last year to address JPG quality.To me, the Q2 is an excellent camera if you are happy with wide-angle only.Leica doesn't have Japanese color and no much of a Film effect. the german look is more natural colors out of the camera.

Wolf's Head, change aspect ratios with in-camera software. That sounds like a hit to me. Let's hope that Leica is reading this post and then takes the hint.

koweb wrote:nonicks 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.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.Thanks for the info on iDR; I've not used it at all yet, but I will after this.I'm curious how it works; for example with Fuji X systems, they have DR100, 200 and 400. It seems the higher settings were good for JPGs but did nothing for RAW, maybe even was worse. Do you know how iDR is implemented? (I will do some searching as well if you don't). Thanks!Here is the link to the PDF file of the firmware note from Leica:https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/EN_Q2%20FW4.0%20Release%20Notes.pdfUnlike Fuji's DR 100/200/400, there is no ISO discrimination for activating iDR. But as the note mentioned, the effect is more pronounced with low ISO AND fast shutter speeds .Only the dark areas will be affected although Leica said it may reduce differentiation in the very bright areas. The impact is very minor, if any, in my experience.I am still experimenting this feature as I relied mostly on Auto before. Although I mentioned Standard /low maintained contrast and saturation better, I will need to use it more in different lighting/scenarios to really confirm. The choice is mostly a personal preference of course. And nothing is wrong with the Auto setting but setting your own strength level may give you a little more consistent and predictable results/look.Also since it will not affect the highlights ( beside of the very bright areas), exposing for bright part ( not the brightest area ) of the scene when using it tends to give good balanced results.On the other hand, Fuji's approach is to underexpose the entire image by 1 or 2 stops corresponding to the D-Rng selected (DR200 orDR 400). and then increase the brightness of most pixels but the brightest ones in jpeg processing. Contrast is then added back according to the film sim. To activate the feature you have to increase your ISO to 320/400 for DR200, or 640/800 for the DR400.Although the processing part of the D-Rng feature only affects the final SOOC jpeg, the Raw will be impacted in the way of higher ISO being selected (a tiny little bit more noise and tiny little bit of detail loss in some cases, maybe?).That is what I know/observed so far. Hope you find it helpful. And please feel free to share if you find anything different. I am still learning and ready to learn more.

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.Leica got things right with the Q2 which, in my opinion, produces great images, but I have to agree the original Q was a work in progress when it came to a couple of things, including JPEG quality.Naturally, raw images were good, and JPEGs could always be improved with a little post-processing/editing.As I said, Leica made significant improvements with the Q2, and I honestly think it's capable of the best image quality among all the prime lens cameras.If I was a better photographer and had the money, I'd own one.

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.Had to smile about this.I don't own a Leica but have owned a Sony RX1 for several years and if I had to change one major feature of the camera it would be to have a 28mm lens instead of the 35mm.I have to admit that I love the lens on that camera, but a little wider would be better, at times.