A long time reader asked for my final, definitive opinion of the Leica Q2. Here you go:

HRC. UT Austin Campus.

I bought a Leica Q2 late last year with no real intention or project in mind. I'd just heard and read so many good things about the handling, the image quality and the build quality of the camera that I wanted to see for myself if I could use it to more easily make great photos while out and around. I thought it would make an especially good camera for travel. We're still waiting to see on that last point but there is no reason it should not work well. The Q2 was not my first Leica digital camera investment. I had previously purchased and used six other Leicas and of the six five exceeded my expectations. The one outlier was the APS-C format TL2 which was....difficult. 

I call the TL2 difficult not because the files from the camera lacked any of the Leica color science and not because the build quality of the camera was lacking but it was obvious to me that the interface design; the menus and the way a user interacted with them, were absolutely foreign to all my previous Leica experiences. And since I did not have the opportunity to learn smart phone interfaces in the crib I found the way the settings worked trendy, murky and confusing. That camera was expelled from the fold with extreme prejudice. 

But my experiences with the CL, the SL and the SL2 models were, where the menus are involved, like coming home. In almost all paid work situations I like nothing better than using the SL and SL2 cameras. While they are very sturdy they are also a bit heavy for other casual uses. Carrying around a couple of these full frame cameras and a complement of lenses for a day is a chore. In the commercial photography workplace they are just another bit of gear on the cart, chasing around after cases of lights, stands, sandbags, tripods and cables. But walking the streets of Austin the bigger cameras and lenses are noticeable and, after a time, weighty. Especially if you would try doing a full day of street shooting with the SL2 and the enormously dense 24-90mm f2.8-4.0 zoom lens. The combination will give you pause. 

I added the Leica CLs to the mix pretty much as an alternative to the burden of the bigger cameras. I figured they would accept the same lens mount, fit better into a street shooting modality and they very much reminded me of my very first foray into Leica-dom, the camera was a Red Dial Leica IIIf that I bought for a song, along with a clean 50mm f4.0 collapsible Elmar lens, from the Camera Exchange in San Antonio, Texas. 

And, by most logical measures I should have stopped and been happy with the combination of small and large Leica digital cameras but this is not the way of the ancient photographer (been watching too many episodes of The Mandalorian...). Kaizen pushes me to constantly experiment with new ways of doing stuff with the goal of somehow improving my photography --- even though I know the improvements really need to come from me and not my gear.

But the lure (and the marketing) of the Q2 is compelling. The Force is currently strong with Leica. 

But enough about my Leica origin story. How do I like the camera now that I've had the chance to use it for a few months and shoot thousands of frames with it? It's an easy answer if you don't bring economics into the discussion. The camera itself is mostly well designed but I have a few niggles about its hand-hold-ability and I'll get to that below. When it comes to image quality I have no reservations whatsoever. 

When I use the camera in either the raw format or the Jpeg format I get clean, sharp files that match up well (or slightly better) than the lovely files I can get from the Leica SL2. The files are well corrected for vignetting and geometric distortions added by the lens. This all happens under the hood so we never see evidence of any compromise where the lens is concerned. I wasn't sure I'd get along well with the "crop" mode as Leica has implemented it but I find it very transparent to use now. I mostly frame and shoot at 28mm but I don't hesitate to use the crop mode for 35mm and 50mm images, I'm a bit leery about going all the way out to 75mm but I have done it, posted images from that crop and don't notice, at web res, any telltale loss of quality vis-a-vis the full frame images. 

I should explain the crop mode. If you shoot in Jpeg you can shoot at the native 28mm and crop on your own in post. But you have the option to push a button near the top of the camera (on the back) that will show you bright, solid frame lines for 35mm. Push the button again to see the same kind of frame lines for 50mm. Push the button a third time to see those frame lines for 75mm. If you select, say the 35mm frame crop in Jpeg and trip the shutter the file is captured at that crop and the review instantly shows the cropped image. When you open the Jpeg file in post it opens in that crop and you don't have an option to revert back to a full frame image. 

When you are shooting in the raw file (DNG) format and you push the crop button to engage 35mm you'll see the frameline for the crop you've selected overlayed on your fill frame 28mm image but once you take the shot the post shot review will still only show you the full 28mm frame with the 35mm crop marks overlayed. If you open that file in Adobe Lightroom you will see only the 35mm crop. But here's the real difference, if you click the cropping tool from the menu you can see the full 28mm frame residing in a darker window with the 35mm frame in the center. Should you decide you'd like to "uncrop" the image you can do so with the crop tools and get back all the way to the full 28mm frame. So, with raw, as usual, nothing is permanently baked in. You can revert to the default. 

This leads to the question I pondered most before melting down a credit card as a sacrifice to Leica for their work on the Q2. To wit, just how good do the files look when they've been cropped? 

First you have to know that Leica uses a sensor that's perfectly paired with the built-in lens. The edges and the center are extremely sharp and the resolution of the integrated system of lens and sensor is outstanding. So you are starting out with 47+ megapixel images unmarred by aggressive anti-aliasing filters in the mix. And with a lens that's perfectly matched to the sensor. The crop to 35mms gets you a bit over 30 megapixels of detail. Switching to 50mms gets you about 15 megapixels of detail. And it's sharp detail. If I know I'll want to print an image large I try to stick to 28mm and 35mm but I have no real fears of reaching all the way to 50mm to get the image I want. All my experiments with the cropping in camera have been very successful with the caveat that I've steered away from relying on the 75mm crop just out of years of training that pokes me in the ribs and tells me "it just can't be good enough at 7 megapixels!!!" But we all know that for web work it would be fine. Just fine. 

So, in addition, the camera is weather sealed to an IP 52 rating which means I don't mind getting it out in mellow rain. Hours of hard, driving rain would be a different story. I'm not a believer that any camera can hold out against eventual intrusion of water forever. I did have worries about dust intrusion. I'd read that this could be a problem, over time, with the original Q camera. Dust could settle on the sensor or in the lens. Presumed to be fixed in the Q2.

To prevent this dust issue knowledgeable Q users pointed to the top mounted microphone ports as potential problem areas for dust and routinely cover those with tape. I rarely use "protection" filters on my lenses but added a B+W filter to the Q2 just as an overprotective move meant to enhance internal systems protections from the elements. Probably nothing but paranoia on my part. With these small mods in place I am confident in using the camera almost anywhere and under any conditions. 

One plus for users who are currently using the SL cameras is the fact that the Q2 shares the same battery model as those bigger cameras. It also has the same easy insertion protocol as those cameras. It's cool that there is no battery door to break off in the heat of a fast battery change out.  That cross camera battery use is a decided plus when you consider that replacement/back up batteries are currently USD $285 each and are sometimes annoyingly out of stock. I am always just a bit frustrated when I look at current Panasonic batteries for the S5 and the S5II and see that the shape and contact configuration of those batteries is so, so similar to the Leica SL batteries. And I can pick up generics of the Panasonic batteries all day long for as little as $25 or $30 each. $65 for Panasonic branded ones. It would be nice to have five or ten inexpensive batteries for the Q2. Not that it goes through batteries quickly (it actually is much more power efficient than your average SL2) but that one could go on an extended vacation without needing to nurse batteries every night...

At this point in my "review" I have to say that the camera is nicely sized and has great, great image quality. Plus you get an extra boost if 28mm is one of your most preferred focal lengths to use. The low light performance is on par with high resolution competitors and the DNG files are actually almost thrilling to edit. They look good and respond well to post production manipulation. Added to this is the quiet, stealthy shutter and one feature that doesn't get enough oxygen.... A leaf shutter that can sync with flash all the way up to 1/2,000th of a second. It's a wonderful plus if you just need a "puff" of light to fill in quick portraits in chancy light. 

Now. Here are my two gripes: First, the area on which your right hand thumb is supposed to sit isn't well positioned for my average sized hands. Consider that I am "only" five feet eight inches tall and weigh "only" 155 pounds. If you are one of the new generations of Americans raised on hormone laden beef, chicken and pork, as well as bountiful and regular doses of sugar you may have mutated to some enormous size of six and a half or seven feet tall. Your hands may totally eclipse the camera. And your thumb will end up somewhere different than mine on the back of the camera. For either of us, whether your reach needs to be truncated or mine extended, the surface area of the spot intended to constitute the back part of your overall right hand grip is smoothly painted and doesn't give enough assured purchase to inspire "one-handed handling" confidence. You will want a Leica or an aftermarket thumb grip that fits into the hot shoe and provides a secure place to rest your thumb. I'm cheap. I'm using a JJC thumb grip and it works fine. It's five or ten times cheaper than the Leica thumb grip...

In the same vein, the front of the camera is rounded and the leatherette covering there is also fine grained which means that unless you are differently configured, hand-wise, than me and countless others, you will have trouble adequately gripping the camera with your right hand. I added a Hoage front grip to the camera (attaches to the bottom via tripod mount socket) which neatly solves the problem. Whether you get the cheap Hoage branded grip or the luxe Leica front grip you will still have to remove the grip to access the memory card. Both allow for ready access to the battery while they are on the camera. Those two issues are my only real complaints with the Q2. If you want to use the camera in its rawest form, meaning no added grips on the front or the back I would counsel you to use a hand strap or make secure use of the included neck strap to prevent an unwanted disconnection of the camera and your hand at an inopportune moment ---- which would be just about any moment. 

With the grips in place the camera handles very well. And the only other consideration is the value for the price. And that depends so much on what else you have on hand already. I like the Q2 and won't get rid of it now. It's perfect as a carry everywhere camera and the files outclass and out deliver compared to the files from my CLs. And nearly every other camera I've owned. It's good compromise on most fronts when compared to the bigger cameras. 

But if I was just entering the market for modern digital Leicas fresh and clean of all encumberances and wanted a more "all around" pro and hobbyist camera I'd probably choose an SL2-S and the Leica/Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 as a better starter camera into the system. I obviously was already both feet in and when I had some extra cash rolling around it was an easy choice to make. 

Mr. Biro, I hope this is a useful review for you. I presume you know all the specs and features from investigating the Q2 on the Leica site and from reviews. Here's my final assessment: If I decided to retire entirely from the field of commercial photography I would divest every scrape of gear from every cabinet and closet and keep only the Q2 and the SL2, along with the big zoom and one more convenient and much smaller 50mm lens for the SL2. I'd sell off all the other cameras but would sell them sans batteries (making that very, very clear to the buyers....) and I'd be set for a long while until Leica came out with something new and even more tantalizing. 

All the photos here were taken yesterday afternoon during a walk around the UT Austin campus with the Q2. I spent many years there as a student and then on the faculty as a "Specialist Lecturer" in the College of Fine Arts. To my knowledge, at age 24, I was the youngest faculty hire at the time at UT. Fun, nostalgic walk around old stomping grounds. Lots of memories. UT also has better swimming pools now... Maybe I should go back... pursue a degree in something practical....like  philosophy or art history.

Last image is from off campus. Right across the street.

 

Testing an old lens that's "new to me" and wearing an old watch that's not new to me. Here's how the morning went...

 

I'd like to think that I'm not an acquisitive nerd but like Michael Johnston  my "hobbies" also extend to wristwatches. The one in the photo above is an  Eterna Matic, Airforce II which is water resistant to 10 ATM or 100 meters. It is an automatic which can also be hand wound. It's Swiss made with a Swiss mechanical movement and came with a black leather band. It's a watch I have owned for about 20 years. It's one of four Eterna automatics I seem to have collected and, because it is small and minimalist, it is one of my favorite dress watches. 

How accurate is it? I have no clue....Nor do I care.

Yesterday I picked up a used Carl Zeiss 35-135mm f3.3 to 4.5 zoom lens that was originally made to use on Contax Y/C cameras. Cameras like the Contax RTSIII which was an absolutely delightful camera from the 1990s. The lens was described by Zeiss in their technical literature as being of superb optical quality and competitive with many prime lenses. 

It's a manual focusing lens and has no electronic contacts with which to communicate with any camera. When used with an adapter on a Leica SL2 the lens is like the Sphinx. It divulges no information. It just rides on the front of the camera and looks as cool as possible. 

I had no intention of buying yet another "standard" zoom lens since I already have, for the full frame L mount system the Panasonic 24-105mm and the Leica 24-90mm products. Both are very good and very useful but they each bring something different to the table. The Leica brings unbeatable image quality at all focal lengths while the Panasonic brings with it image stabilization (great addition to the non-stabilized, older Leica SL cameras, and the CL + TL) and easier handling on account of its lower weight. 

I also have the Panasonic 20-60mm lens which is often overlooked but, for the money is an excellent performers within its range. And so affordable. 

But a friend alerted me to the arrival of the Zeiss zoom at our local camera store and suggested I check it out. He knew I had used the Contax system for a few years and remembered that I liked their lenses a great deal. In fact, I still have and use both the 28mm Zeiss Distagon and the 50mm Zeiss Planar lenses from that old system, with adapters, on the Leica and Panasonic cameras and find them to be really good when used correctly. 

When the lens is zoomed all the way out it looks enormous. About the size of 

my 70-200mm. When it's at 35mm it's about half the lens. And note, this is without a hood.

The 35-135mm is a combined focus and zoom ring model. One "pushes or pulls" the main ring on the lens  to zoom between 35mm and 135mm. The ring also rotates for focusing. This lens is... and isn't a "close focusing monster." Used in its normal mode it only focuses down to 1.2 meters or about five feet and change. But the ring closest to the camera body can be pulled back toward the camera to engage a macro focus capability that will get one down to about 10 inches. I haven't had the chance to use the macro functionality but I'll get around to it.

Given all these parameters you probably can tell that using the lens for day to day photography requires...patience and processes. For example. Since there is no automatic aperture action you can't just set an aperture and focus. You'll go crazy trying to fine focus while battling extended depth of field at f8.0 or f11. The appropriate way, as often described by Sean Reid, is to set the aperture to its widest setting and then focus. This gives you the shallowest depth of field and helps you make a visual assessment of when you are "in the zone." Once you've hit sharp focus you then take a second or two to stop down to the taking aperture you wanted in the first place. 

I would add to this the idea that one focuses at the widest aperture and augments the process by also "punching in" the magnification to see a much enlarged section of the frame for even more accurate focusing. I also keep focus peaking engaged as a quick double check; even with full magnification. 

Obviously this is a pain in the butt and won't go very far in making you the fastest shooter in town. But that's what the AF lenses are ultimately for. There were some lenses made in the film days that were designed to be par focal (meaning that you could focus at the longest focal length which was also the most magnified and then zoom to a wider angle of view and get a more accurate focus setting that way. This is not a par focal lens. Not by a long shot. Or or short shot.

While a number of lenses that I use with adapters seem to work perfectly for exposure on the SL2 this is also not one of them. I find myself often correcting overexposure with a twist of the exposure compensation dial. A fairly large number of images I made this morning required anywhere from a third stop to a stop and a half of correction (usually darker...) to get the exposure right for me. 

Another thing you need to know if you are considering finding one of these beauties and picking one up is that "picking it up" is a bit of a workout. The lens weigh somewhere north of two pounds and will make just about any combination of camera body and lens feel a bit front heavy. Or just...heavy. The silver lining might be that if you carry the camera and lens all day in your left or right hand (instead of on the strap) with your elbow bent you will build muscle mass. I recommend switching hands from time to time. The front of the lens is big. It takes an 82mm filter as does the big Leica lens. I've also read that the 35-135mm has a tendency to flare but I didn't see much evidence of that today. I will try to source a lens hood because they are beneficial even in studio settings. 

One might question my sanity in buying a lens that's so cumbersome and unforgiving. I would get in line with you to make that diagnosis but...I would declare (disingenuously or not) that the lens has a different look and optical character from the more modern lenses and gives me an extra tool for creating images that transcend the look of current gear. And that my preferred use would be for making portraits with the camera happily ensconced on a tripod and used at a comfortable pace. But another reason for my purchase was purely nostalgia for simpler times and sexier systems. This was a lens I wish I'd bought back 25 years ago and I never did. Being able to play with one to my heart's content now, and for about $300, seemed like a bargain. But I'll let the photos tell the story....

In a full sized, 47 megapixel raw file the texture on the stone on the building on the left is so well imaged that even the texture shows more texture. And you can see the sand in the mortar between the bricks. It's pretty magnificent. I like it.

The "color checker" shot. Does the wall render a greener color than the sky?

You'd be surprised at how many cameras make a mess of this....

this shot is all about my ability to handhold a camera at 1/15th or 1/20th of second with any degree of steadiness. I shot this at 1/20th of a second into a mirror in a dimly lit room. I had already swum two miles earlier, had two cups of strong coffee and walked a mile in the heat. Not bad for an ancient photographer. 

It's important to work on your handholding skills if you use this lens with any of my Leica SL(x) cameras. The two earlier SL bodies have no image stabilization nor does the lens. Your skill is it. The SL2 has image stabilization but requires you to either use an L system lens or to be able to pick from a lens that is in the camera's profile set. This one is not. 

I guess if you are going to work at a fixed focal length with this lens you could select a Leica R lens profile that matches the focal length and this would enable I. S. but you'd be stuck with a mismatched lens profile which may overcorrect for vignetting or geometry or cause some color spread that you don't want. 

It's a crap shoot. I'll try it and see what works. But for today it was not on the menu.

Which brings up something else. We're spoiled by I.S. in one good way. If you are focusing manually it stabilizes the finder image making it easier to achieve fine focus at longer focal lengths or higher magnifications. The finder images are less jumpy and jittery. 

I'm always been impressed when a lens is capable of rendering straight lines as straight lines without the intervention of software fixes and profiles. It's the mark of a high performance design. 

No geometric "fixes" were attempted on this image in post production. The lens just makes...

straight lines.

It was a strange morning. I hit the pool and swam from eight to nine. I got out, got dressed and went to meet a photographer in the downtown area who said he wanted to "do the walk" with me. When I got to my usual parking spot I checked my texts and found one from him bowing out for today. I was there with a camera so I went right into the walk. From 9:30 till around noon I put in some good miles and got the extra workout from carrying the camera and lens around. By noon the temperature was already in the 90s and I was feeling....tired. Worn out. Thirsty and spent. Some iced tea and bit of lunch was good and sitting on my butt writing this post was enforced relaxation. I think I'll draw the line at getting more than 4 hours a day of exercise and movement. At least not all at once....

Here's to sitting in a quiet, dim studio with the air conditioning cranking and more iced tea in the fridge. 

New lenses are fun. I like this one. I need to find a human to photograph with it. It's a keeper just for its personality.