Low light Q Photos

I like it. Not only does it shoot super sharp images in the light but low light will add another dimension to the camera. All of these were shot with auto focus which shows how good the lens focuses. I processed in Lightroom with a max of 50 % noise reduction. Next opportunity I'll go to 12,500 ISO, maybe in a bar or restaurant.

Thanks!
Jim
 
very nice. may even be a little better at 6400 than my old rx1, which is saying something. this looks like a real home run for leica on many fronts: sensor, af, manual focus, low light, rendering, ergonomics, build quality, size etc. too bad they just didnt build on this framework with their new monstrous SL.
 
in these circumstances, well-considered exposure and thoughtful post-production rendering really makes a difference.

Kudos on these excellent photographs.
 
am i the only one that's seeing the nasty banding in all but the first picture, specifically in the top left corner of all the sky pictures? it weirdly curves too.

i don't think 6400 is workable, or at least printable, from what's shown here.
 
They look like HDR images in some of them... has post-processing been applied? Some look 'unnatural'. Or is this a natural feature of the camera/lens in this situation?

I am curious.
 
iridium7777 said:
am i the only one that's seeing the nasty banding in all but the first picture, specifically in the top left corner of all the sky pictures? it weirdly curves too.

i don't think 6400 is workable, or at least printable, from what's shown here.
Click to expand...

In addition the auto white balance is terrible and the flare around the lights on the light poles are what I'd expect from a $100 camera. It almost looks like the lens had fog. The color looks muddy. Some highlights also appear to be on the edge of being blown.

A good example of how bad the white balance is the Balboa bar. There's only one color temperature of light source there and it couldn't handle it. Look at the green cast in that image. The bucycle shot has terrible color as well. The camera balanced color for inside the window not the dominate light outside.
 
i wasn't even going to add anymore comments on other aspects of pictures -- i literally came here looking for high ISO examples from a Q because i'm considering this camera and found this post and was amazed at all the positive comments. if those previous comments are the 'standard' that leica is working to they definitely won't have any issues selling this camera.


x-ray said:
In addition the auto white balance is terrible and the flare around the lights on the light poles are what I'd expect from a $100 camera. It almost looks like the lens had fog. The color looks muddy. Some highlights also appear to be on the edge of being blown.

A good example of how bad the white balance is the Balboa bar. There's only one color temperature of light source there and it couldn't handle it. Look at the green cast in that image. The bucycle shot has terrible color as well. The camera balanced color for inside the window not the dominate light outside.
Click to expand...
 
iridium7777 said:
am i the only one that's seeing the nasty banding in all but the first picture, specifically in the top left corner of all the sky pictures? it weirdly curves too.

i don't think 6400 is workable, or at least printable, from what's shown here.
Click to expand...

you aren't the only one. I wouldn't even go to 3200. The details are mushy and oversharpened.
 
Wasn't there a firmware update already a while ago that reduced the banding? From what I have seen, the sensor performance in this respect is a tad behind the old Sony RX1 sensor. Seems like a great product.
 
iridium7777 said:
i wasn't even going to add anymore comments on other aspects of pictures -- i literally came here looking for high ISO examples from a Q because i'm considering this camera and found this post and was amazed at all the positive comments. if those previous comments are the 'standard' that leica is working to they definitely won't have any issues selling this camera.
Click to expand...

I'm serious, I cant believe people would accept this as being good. It not up to the level of a $4000 camera and not even a $1000 camera. Either they dont know what an excellent digital images look like or they're blinded by the name. I'm not trying to insult anyone here but it's not a very good performer. It always amazes me what the leica fan club will accept because it's a Leica.
 
For all bashing the Q based on these tiny jpg post ...
Have you used the camera yourself and evaluated original dng files on a calibrated monitor? Just a thought:rolleyes:
 
Jpg or tif has nothing to do with the halos around the lights at the dock or muddy color balance. If it was made by canon or nikon would you be so defensive about it? Leica fans will buy anything the put out at any price apparently. Looking back at the M8 and M9 problems and they continued to sell its apparent. Would you honestly accept this from another company? I'm not bashing, I'm stating an honest observation and I'd do it no matter who made it.
 
reviewing DNG files on a calibrated monitor doesn't mean squat. Just hearing that leads me to believe that you don't understand digital very well.

Just because you look at a raw file in 32 bit doesn't mean it's going to look better than something processed and exported in 8 bit. You can't actually see a difference between an 8 bit and a 32 bit file. The bit depth just refers to the amount of color information that you have to work with within the file. It's meant as a digital negative. It has more than enough information for you to push and pull highlights, shadows, exposure etc. Once you are satisfied you can export to 16 or 8 bit. These are best for viewing on the web. All web images are 8 bit at least to my knowledge.

DNG files aren't meant for viewing. period. Do you look at your film negatives on a light table and marvel about how good they look compared to a finished print?

The files I see posted look cellphone quality. I'm being very honest here, my Nexus 6p could take similar quality images. Possibly even better because it may not have as much sensor noise and banding.

The OP doesn't seem to know how to use the camera to the best of its abilities. I have a hard time believing that any company, not just leica could release a camera with such a price tag and have it perform like this. However within the hands of the incompetent blindly using all of the aids like noise reduction and sharpening without any knowledge of how this will adversely effect their image I can see how images like this can come from the Q.

I would like to see some posts from someone who actually knows how to use the camera to see how the Q actually performs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top