X-T5 + XF 18 1.4 vs. Q2

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

Form factor, Leica simplicity, great manual focus implementation, etc.

Are you really going to be filling the buffer or need huge FPS? Then yeah, I do not think Leica is for you in general. It's a different shooting mentality.

Why do you think you want a Q2? I will say though, this is one of those situations where you cannot go wrong. You'll end up with a great camera either way.

--
https://www.johngellings.com
Instagram = @johngellings0

John Gellings said:

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

Form factor, Leica simplicity, great manual focus implementation, etc.

Are you really going to be filling the buffer or need huge FPS? T

Click to expand...

Yes. Unlike HC-B, I like to get as many shots of the subject as possible so that I don't get stuck with a blink at the decisive moment.

John Gellings said:

hen yeah, I do not think Leica is for you in general. It's a different shooting mentality.

Why do you think you want a Q2? I

Click to expand...

Documentary photography.

John Gellings said:

will say though, this is one of those situations where you cannot go wrong. You'll end up with a great camera either way.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Hoka Hey said:

John Gellings said:

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

Form factor, Leica simplicity, great manual focus implementation, etc.

Are you really going to be filling the buffer or need huge FPS? T

Click to expand...

Yes. Unlike HC-B, I like to get as many shots of the subject as possible so that I don't get stuck with a blink at the decisive moment.

Click to expand...

10 fps isn’t enough?

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

hen yeah, I do not think Leica is for you in general. It's a different shooting mentality.

Why do you think you want a Q2? I

Click to expand...

Documentary photography.

Click to expand...

Well any small format camera can be used for that.

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

will say though, this is one of those situations where you cannot go wrong. You'll end up with a great camera either way.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Click to expand...

John Gellings said:

Hoka Hey said:

John Gellings said:

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

Form factor, Leica simplicity, great manual focus implementation, etc.

Are you really going to be filling the buffer or need huge FPS? T

Click to expand...

Yes. Unlike HC-B, I like to get as many shots of the subject as possible so that I don't get stuck with a blink at the decisive moment.

Click to expand...

10 fps isn’t enough?

Click to expand...

Depends on the situation.

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

hen yeah, I do not think Leica is for you in general. It's a different shooting mentality.

Why do you think you want a Q2? I

Click to expand...

Documentary photography.

Click to expand...

Well any small format camera can be used for that.

Click to expand...

Certainly, but not with similar IQ to the Q2 or the X-T5.

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

John Gellings said:

will say though, this is one of those situations where you cannot go wrong. You'll end up with a great camera either way.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hoka Hey said:

John Gellings said:

Hoka Hey said:

John Gellings said:

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

Form factor, Leica simplicity, great manual focus implementation, etc.

Are you really going to be filling the buffer or need huge FPS? T

Click to expand...

Yes. Unlike HC-B, I like to get as many shots of the subject as possible so that I don't get stuck with a blink at the decisive moment.

Click to expand...

10 fps isn’t enough?

Click to expand...

Depends on the situation.

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

hen yeah, I do not think Leica is for you in general. It's a different shooting mentality.

Why do you think you want a Q2? I

Click to expand...

Documentary photography.

Click to expand...

Well any small format camera can be used for that.

Click to expand...

Certainly, but not with similar IQ to the Q2 or the X-T5.

Click to expand...

those are the small format cameras I’m taking about

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

Hoka Hey said:

will say though, this is one of those situations where you cannot go wrong. You'll end up with a great camera either way.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi,

Firstly, do you already own the XT5 with 18/1.4? If you do, you've already invested and changing over would lose some value. That is, unless you plan to keep both the XT5, 18mm and Q2. Which IMO is almost pointless. As John said, they're both excellent cameras - but why invest in two expensive options to get the same FOV??

If you haven't yet bought the XT5, the most significant difference is the fact that the XT5 is an ILC. If you want to switch the 18mm for a 35mm, a 90mm, a 150-600mm, or whatever, you can do it. If you buy the Q2, you can't do that. Personally, I hate being stuck with one FOV - I've been doing photography too long to not 'see' other compositions.

As far as the shooting style goes, you can shoot an XT5 contemplatively like a rangefinder of old. On the other hand, the Leica probably can't offer quite the speed and flexibility of the XT5 if you want that....

Enjoy whatever you decide.

Cheers, Rod

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

… “is arguably better…”

Well, in my experience this is not so. I just did an outing with a good friend who has a new Q2. I was shooting with my H2 and 18mm f/1.4. We intentionally shot a lot of similar things, wanting to compare image quality / file quality.

The H2 and the new Fuji f/1.4 lenses are spectacular. BUT they are no match for the Leica Q2. I was very pleased with my output and prints up to 17x22”. . . but my friend’s files / prints were just better in every way. Is it a huge difference? No, but it is undeniably “there.” Better dynamic range, better tonal gradation, better resolution. It ought to be better given how expensive it is!

Would that make me jump to the Q2? Nope. He’s stuck with one focal length. I have much better flexibility.

Rand

Rand 47 said:

Hoka Hey said:

I've found a really good deal on a Q2, but it seems like the IQ from the X-T5 is arguably better and you get 18 FPS before hitting the buffer as opposed to 10 for the Q2.

Other than size (and arguably prestige), is there any reason to get the Q2 over this Fuji combo?

Click to expand...

… “is arguably better…”

Well, in my experience this is not so. I just did an outing with a good friend who has a new Q2. I was shooting with my H2 and 18mm f/1.4. We intentionally shot a lot of similar things, wanting to compare image quality / file quality.

The H2 and the new Fuji f/1.4 lenses are spectacular. BUT they are no match for the Leica Q2. I was very pleased with my output and prints up to 17x22”. . . but my friend’s files / prints were just better in every way. Is it a huge difference? No, but it is undeniably “there.” Better dynamic range, better tonal gradation, better resolution. It ought to be better given how expensive it is!

Would that make me jump to the Q2? Nope. He’s stuck with one focal length. I have much better flexibility.

Rand

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Real world experience is very helpful.

The Q2 has great tonal gradation and better resolution, but not by much on the resolution. The PDR suggests that the Fuji combo might have better dynamic range.





Any chance that you could post a link to a few of the comparison RAW files? That would be extremely helpful.

I've looked at the two cameras with the studio comparison tool, but it doesn't use the 18 f/1.4.

Thanks again for your comments.

--
Joe

I was just thinking that when the XP4 and XE5 get the new sensor and processor, paired with the 18mm, that the Q2 will have some competition. But the Q2 is prime for an update as well, so it will be interesting to see what Leica will do next.

Not comparable. I can only speak for the X-T3. Great camera - but not even close to how the Q2 works and operates. The lens quality of the Q2 and how it works in MF. No comparrison! Both cameras have their place (in my case the X-T3 and the Q2). But it certainly isn't on against the other.

Nielk Mike said:

Not comparable. I can only speak for the X-T3. Great camera - but not even close to how the Q2 works and operates. The lens quality of the Q2 and how it works in MF. No comparrison! Both cameras have their place (in my case the X-T3 and the Q2). But it certainly isn't on against the other.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I would agree about the Xt3, but the XT5 is a significant upgrade in sensor, AF and other areas. MF is not a consideration for me as the XT5 works well in AF and AF + M

Hoka Hey said:

Nielk Mike said:

Not comparable. I can only speak for the X-T3. Great camera - but not even close to how the Q2 works and operates. The lens quality of the Q2 and how it works in MF. No comparrison! Both cameras have their place (in my case the X-T3 and the Q2). But it certainly isn't on against the other.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I would agree about the Xt3, but the XT5 is a significant upgrade in sensor, AF and other areas. MF is not a consideration for me as the XT5 works well in AF and AF + M

Click to expand...

Again, I don't know how well the X-5T performs. Here are two ISO 5000 images w/o flash taken with the Q2. The second one is a 50% crop.

Hoka Hey said:

Nielk Mike said:

Not comparable. I can only speak for the X-T3. Great camera - but not even close to how the Q2 works and operates. The lens quality of the Q2 and how it works in MF. No comparrison! Both cameras have their place (in my case the X-T3 and the Q2). But it certainly isn't on against the other.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I would agree about the Xt3, but the XT5 is a significant upgrade in sensor, AF and other areas. MF is not a consideration for me as the XT5 works well in AF and AF + M

Click to expand...

See my post above. I was using H2. Same sensor / processor as the T5.

This isn’t a putdown of the Fuji cameras. It’s just a fact of engineering, materials, cost etc. You’d expect a FF camera w/ a great sensor and stellar “matched” lens to outperform the Fujis. If it didn’t, shame on Leica.

I cannot share raws to compare, unfortunately. My friend is a “known” photographer and sharing his work is not possible.

Rand

Rand 47 said:

Hoka Hey said:

Nielk Mike said:

Not comparable. I can only speak for the X-T3. Great camera - but not even close to how the Q2 works and operates. The lens quality of the Q2 and how it works in MF. No comparrison! Both cameras have their place (in my case the X-T3 and the Q2). But it certainly isn't on against the other.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I would agree about the Xt3, but the XT5 is a significant upgrade in sensor, AF and other areas. MF is not a consideration for me as the XT5 works well in AF and AF + M

Click to expand...

See my post above. I was using H2. Same sensor / processor as the T5.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of that. Thanks.

Rand 47 said:

This isn’t a putdown of the Fuji cameras. It’s just a fact of engineering, materials, cost etc. You’d expect a FF camera w/ a great sensor and stellar “matched” lens to outperform the Fujis. If it didn’t, shame on Leica.

Click to expand...

Points well taken. On the other hand, the X-H2/X-T5 is much more recent tech and the XF 18 f/1.4 very extremely highly regarded. That's why I'm hoping for a head to head comparison of RAWs.

Rand 47 said:

I cannot share raws to compare, unfortunately. My friend is a “known” photographer and sharing his work is not possible.

Click to expand...

This is asking a LOT. I wonder if your friend might be willing to let you take an image with his Q2 that you could share along with a comparison from the Fuji combo.

If your friend is willing, it would be great to have a set of RAWs with each camera at base ISO and a set with each camera at ISO 6400.

Again, I know that's asking a lot.

Rand 47 said:

Rand

Click to expand...

Thanks again for your help.

Best,

So, my desire for the best gear possible for the task got the better of me and I ordered the Q2. I've shot it along side the X-T5 + XF 18 f/1.4.

When I demosaiced the Fuji image through LR, the Q2 DNG had the advantage. When I demosaiced the Fuji RAW with Iridient, the images seem very close. I'm really sold on Iridient X Transformer and will be buying it shortly.

The fuji was at ISO 125 and the Leica was at ISO 50.

Here are the images. The WB for each image is a little different, but not far off enough for me to waste daylight trying to match.


X-T5


Q2

Here's a couple of screen shots from FastRawViewer with the Q2 at 100% and the X-T5 at 108%.

The Fuji is on the right in the screenshot below.


Fuji is on the right

The Leica is on the right in the screenshot below.


Q2 is on the right.

Here's a link to the RAW files.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1c1uwcpfetwpzws/AAAY0pUEVTiUsHpHe-uBz1jza?dl=0

Which do you like better? Why?

Thanks.

--
Joe

The detail rendering of the Q2 blows the Fuji in the dirt.

Rand

Rand 47 said:

The detail rendering of the Q2 blows the Fuji in the dirt.

Rand

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion Rand.

Who wouldn’t want a Leica Q2 with sync 1/2000 speed, almost silent leaf shutter, larger EVF and rangefinder like body?
That being said, unless you have unlimited funds for gear, they XT5 with the new incredible 18mm 1.4 is a better buy, maybe a little bit smaller, about the same weight with said lens and you can swap lenses should you ever get bored with the 28mm(18mm) .

iRanN said:

Who wouldn’t want a Leica Q2 with sync 1/2000 speed, almost silent leaf shutter, larger EVF and rangefinder like body?
That being said, unless you have unlimited funds for gear, they XT5 with the new incredible 18mm 1.4 is a better buy, maybe a little bit smaller, about the same weight with said lens and you can swap lenses should you ever get bored with the 28mm(18mm) .

Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts iRanN. I know that your question was hypothetical, but my answer is that I prefer the X-T5. In fact, I have both sitting on my desk. I planned to keep both cameras and send the XF 18 1.4 back. However, the Q2 is going back instead.

The IQ is similar enough that I'm looking at other factors which include:

!, Ergonomics. I like to walk around with the camera in my hand by my side. That is easy to do with the XT5. The Q2 is difficult to like that. You can fix that by adding the grip, but the grip covers the SD card slot and battery and has to come off every time you need to get to either one.

2. Ease of use. With the XT5, I can change SS, ISO, Aperture and EX. Comp. Really quickly. With the Q2, you have to decide whether you want to have easy access to ISO or Ex. Comp., but you don't have quick access to both with your eye to the EVF. Q2 has no joy stick and no quick way of centering the AF. You can set it ups so that 2 taps on the LCD will do that, but you have to give up other functionality to do that. I really have to slow down to shoot the Q2. Sometimes that's OK, but I'd prefer that to be my decision rather than dictated by the camera.

3. Customization. I've only had the XT5 for a couple of weeks, but have dialed in what I need to have a fun shooting experience. The Q2 is significantly less customizable.

4. Interchangeable lenses.

There is also an issue with the EVF in the Q2. I've been shooting with relatively black out free mirrorless cameras and the Q2 has a black out between the shots. The lens drive is also disconcerting. It hunts constantly in AFc. I may just have a bad unit, but there is a lot of jitter in the lens drive when autofocus continuos is on. You can hear it and see it in the EVF. When I press the shutter button, I'm getting sharp images, but I really don't like the jitter in the EVF.

All in all, the XT5 is a lot more fun to shoot and for me, the sacrifice in IQ is insignificant. So, the Q2 is going back.

I'm sure that I will catch some heat for my opinion, but that's all it is. The XT5 simply suits my needs better than the Q2.

Best,

--
Joe