New Leica Q2

MCTuomey said:
... I underexpose (-2/3 ex comp) my Q files, then pull up the shadows if needed in post, as you described.
Click to expand...

This effectively reduces raw data signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range by at least 2/3 EV compared to the highest practical exposure.

Banding is typically more obvious as SNR decreases. In all cases banding appears first in shadow regions because they have the lowest SNR.

Think about a raw file made with the lens cap on. There is no light, so there is no signal. In fact the time dependent (random) read noise and time independent artifacts (banding) become the signal! Now both could be well above the analog-to-digital converter's noise floor, both are digitized and both appear in the rendered image.

With the lens cap removed the light becomes the signal. At some level of illuminance, the signal and the photon noise levels become much greater than the read noise and artifact (banding) levels. The artifact levels fall below the ADC noise floor threshold and they are not digitized.

Here's a link.

Banding that increases with exposure is periodic noise. Periodic noise is caused by interference between coherent electronic artifacts and the signal. In some cases interference could increase with signal level (exposure). Periodic noise can be minimized by in-camera data filtering.
 
Doug said:
Yes, you can ignore saving both JPG and DNG if you don't want the JPG. Lightroom will display the DNG as cropped, not with the framelines. Using the framing/crop tool in LR will allow changing the crop. I have not used this feature myself, info as I understand it from the reviews... :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the way it works. With the SL too. :)
 
willie_901 said:
This effectively reduces raw data signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range by at least 2/3 EV compared to the highest practical exposure.

Banding is typically more obvious as SNR decreases. In all cases banding appears first in shadow regions because they have the lowest SNR.

Think about a raw file made with the lens cap on. There is no light, so there is no signal. In fact the time dependent (random) read noise and time independent artifacts (banding) become the signal! Now both could be well above the analog-to-digital converter's noise floor, both are digitized and both appear in the rendered image.

With the lens cap removed the light becomes the signal. At some level of illuminance, the signal and the photon noise levels become much greater than the read noise and artifact (banding) levels. The artifact levels fall below the ADC noise floor threshold and they are not digitized.

Here's a link.

Banding that increases with exposure is periodic noise. Periodic noise is caused by interference between coherent electronic artifacts and the signal. In some cases interference could increase with signal level (exposure). Periodic noise can be minimized by in-camera data filtering.
Click to expand...



While I understand the above - and the "shoot to the right" rule of thumb that follows it, (and am not disputing what you say in general) I find that shooting using "the "highest practical exposure" too often produces blown highlights when shooting outside - in the wild as it were, where sea, sky, bright lights in frame, etc have to be contended with as a practical reality. Blown highlights are almost always obvious, ugly and rarely acceptable in an image. And as a result they too often ruin an image completely. Hence it becomes desirable (at least) to expose somewhat for the brighter areas then pull the rest of the image in post. This means parts of the image will be under exposed - you have moved the exposure curve "to the left". The extent that one can or should do this is matter for experience and experimentation with each image - and with each camera / sensor.

Over-dark shadows look more natural than blown highlights and you can get away with it more often, even though theoretically you have lost some signal in the image. And I find it's the only trade off that mostly works - a usable image that is not quite so replete with the data that it should have in theory is better than an image that has some areas of well exposed pixels that has maximum data combined with areas of the blank white of blown highlights which ruin the overall appearance. This is to a significant extent due to the nature of electronic sensors - too often there is not the gentle gradation from darker shades to white found in film photography - just an ugly transition to sudden blocks of white. (It is something if you will recall many years ago, Fuji tried to address early on by having two types of sensor sites in their sensor arrays - normal ones plus sensor sites designed specifically to handle bright areas)

Shooting to the right is a compromise that works brilliantly in the studio where exposure is inherently controlled by the shooter. But where one has to contend with excessive and uncontrollable brightness in the scene it pretty much works not at all, except that it is something to be borne in mind - don't overdo making the image excessively under exposed as under exposure by too much or will risk ending up with banding or other artifacts of excessively dark exposure and overall loss of data.

If the Q is excessively prone to banding in shadow areas this is a problem. But some reports do claim the tendency has been reduced with later firmware upgrades.
 
^^^^^ +1 what peter said responding to willie’s point re SNR and intentional underexposure. i crush blacks in favor of highlight detail in high contrast light i can’t modify. Banding is the lesser of two sins, for me. Latest firmware in my Q lessens but does not eliminate it. I’ve convinced myself shadow detail is an oxymoron anyway.
 
Interesting to note in Sean Reid's review of the Q2 comparing performance at increasing ISO to that of the older Q... He found that the original Q is inherently slightly less noisy than the Q2. But, when the Q2's higher resolution is employed in scaling down the image to Q-size, then it becomes the one that is slightly better!
 
Hi, did anyone get their hands on a Q2 yet, and what is the experience thus far? (yes, I am tempted, very tempted....)

Thanks, Jean-Marc
 
JMQ said:
Hi, did anyone get their hands on a Q2 yet, and what is the experience thus far? (yes, I am tempted, very tempted....)

Thanks, Jean-Marc
Click to expand...

My friend Kristian Dowling who used to post here a lot under the name "LeicaShot" just put up some photos and short video on his instagram from the recent Thai New Year in Bangkok, which is essentially one big water fight. It the shows the camera with lots of water on it and some of the images that he shot with it. It's pretty interesting.

I am sorry but I don't think he posted it on any websites so you would have to look at his instagram which is his first and last name with no space between them.

cheers, michael
 
I have now had time to post a couple of Leica Q (not Q2) shots to my Flickr account (I have been quite seriously ill and so have done little shooting for the past month). The shots here were taken in evening / night time settings and pulled. I have not seen banding so far. The images are nothing special however and there was some crazy exterior street lighting color to contend with in the second image. Being made with an identical lens and with a processor which is closely related to the Q2's newer process I would expect very similar results from that camera with the obvious exception of resolution and possibly as noted below by another poster, some difference in noise.

Tapas Bar by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Night Time - Bar Crawl by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
peterm1 said:
While I understand the above - and the "shoot to the right" rule of thumb that follows it, (and am not disputing what you say in general) I find that shooting using "the "highest practical exposure" too often produces blown highlights when shooting outside - in the wild as it were, where sea, sky, bright lights in frame, etc have to be contended with as a practical reality. Blown highlights are almost always obvious, ugly and rarely acceptable in an image. And as a result they too often ruin an image completely. Hence it becomes desirable (at least) to expose somewhat for the brighter areas then pull the rest of the image in post. This means parts of the image will be under exposed - you have moved the exposure curve "to the left". The extent that one can or should do this is matter for experience and experimentation with each image - and with each camera / sensor.

Over-dark shadows look more natural than blown highlights and you can get away with it more often, even though theoretically you have lost some signal in the image. And I find it's the only trade off that mostly works - a usable image that is not quite so replete with the data that it should have in theory is better than an image that has some areas of well exposed pixels that has maximum data combined with areas of the blank white of blown highlights which ruin the overall appearance. This is to a significant extent due to the nature of electronic sensors - too often there is not the gentle gradation from darker shades to white found in film photography - just an ugly transition to sudden blocks of white. (It is something if you will recall many years ago, Fuji tried to address early on by having two types of sensor sites in their sensor arrays - normal ones plus sensor sites designed specifically to handle bright areas)

Shooting to the right is a compromise that works brilliantly in the studio where exposure is inherently controlled by the shooter. But where one has to contend with excessive and uncontrollable brightness in the scene it pretty much works not at all, except that it is something to be borne in mind - don't overdo making the image excessively under exposed as under exposure by too much or will risk ending up with banding or other artifacts of excessively dark exposure and overall loss of data.

If the Q is excessively prone to banding in shadow areas this is a problem. But some reports do claim the tendency has been reduced with later firmware upgrades.
Click to expand...

Hi Peter - I have been following your comments for years! The ultimate Lurker ;-)
Your explanation above articulates my experience. In fact you explain the issues so well that I have taken the liberty of copying it and passing it on to a few budding photographer friends (and relatives). I have also advised them that it is all your work, and I have referred them to this forum and your articles on Steve Huff's site.
kind regards
 
agricola said:
Hi Peter - I have been following your comments for years! The ultimate Lurker ;-)
Your explanation above articulates my experience. In fact you explain the issues so well that I have taken the liberty of copying it and passing it on to a few budding photographer friends (and relatives). I have also advised them that it is all your work, and I have referred them to this forum and your articles on Steve Huff's site.
kind regards
Click to expand...

Thanks Agricola. Much appreciated. Take all the liberty you like. Cheers Peter
 
All this internet hoo-har about requiring X amount of megapixels in order to effectively crop and also requiring X amount of megapixels for certain print sizes.

I passed a billboard poster (the size of a building) with an image from an iPhone at the weekend. AN IPHONE. 12mp.

This has been a public service announcement.
 
Calzone said:
Leica Rumors had a report on the new Q2 sensor. It was rated very highly.

Cal
Click to expand...

So I heard.

I`ve been tempted by the SL .
I currently use my M glass on an A7R2 and happy with it especially the evf .
It`s hard to go back to an RF after using one …. for me.
I do like what I`ve seen from the SL files though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top