Leica Q2 Monochrom sample gallery (DPReview TV)

Any chance of high ISO DNGs (ISO 12,800 and above) shot in challenging lighting?

2 weeks agopermalink

I've been doing, post coming into digital, analog b&w for years. I stopped earlier this year, mainly because of the cost and the hassle. And I hate neglecting my FM2n and FM3a.

Getting a used D700 body (fantastic camera), getting it monochromed, cost? It's an idea I guess.

2 weeks agopermalink

photofan1986

Fifty shades of grey...

2 weeks agopermalink

Come on, the scripting isn't that cliche.

2 weeks agopermalink

Come on, the scripting isn't that cliche.

2 weeks agopermalink

attomole

I really like this set of photographs, some of the comments are lukewarm, but I can see photographer enjoyed using this camera and has an eye for compositions that work in B&W but would not in color. good job.

2 weeks agopermalink

NatuRaOx2

Wow wow wow ! The best tonal range and the resolution, so nice . You did a great job of showing the range of shades in the greys. Black n white never gets old . Sublime image quality from this camera it’s insane .

2 weeks agopermalink

heydavemyers

Rich man's toy.

2 weeks agopermalink

heydavemyers:

And yet Leica M Monochromes have been selling for years now.

2 weeks agopermalink

MJJSevilla

Yeah, to rich people.

2 weeks agopermalink

A tool for fairly rich or very enthusiastic people would be a more accurate description of this unique camera.

2 weeks agopermalink

MJJSevilla:

Priced a serious laptop, without a copy of Solidworks?

2 weeks agopermalink

CTMRIGuy

People that care about quality perhaps?

2 weeks agopermalink

Cargo

I don't understand BW photo in 2020...

2 weeks agopermalink

photofan1986

"Why pay less for more? Leica."

2 weeks ago*permalink

There are therapies for that ailment.

2 weeks agopermalink

3pgrey

@cargo
Art. Whether you'd pay $6k for a point and shoot that only does black and white is another question

2 weeks agopermalink

XW9999

Will there be a SL2 monochrome soon?

2 weeks agopermalink

Hope springs eternal.

2 weeks agopermalink

Rob de Loe

It's worth downloading the RAW (DNG) files and working on them. It's a different experience than what I'm used to, that's for sure. I shoot for black and white almost exclusively, but I like starting with a "colour" RAW file so I can work with the colour channels. There are no colour channels with a monochrome sensor, so if you didn't put the right colour filter in front of the lens when you made the shot, things are whatever tone the software in the camera decided to assign them. I use that tool too much to give it up easily. Even the ISO 12,800 files were quite usable, and tidied up nicely in Lightroom with some careful adjustments for sharpness and noise.

The files are pleasing, and working this way works for some folks. It's not for me, but kudos to Leica for being willing to be a niche in the nice and meeting a need.

2 weeks agopermalink

AstroStan

"things are whatever tone the software in the camera decided to assign them"

That's true for JPEG but raws are not "toned", allowing the user a wide range of possibilities.

2 weeks agopermalink

Rob de Loe

"Grey tone" in the context of black and white is a common idea AstroStan. The word "tone" can -- but doesn't have to -- refer to the addition of colour to a black and white image.

But if you prefer, how about, "things are whatever luminance value is recorded by the sensor for each photo site and then converted to a value for the corresponding pixel in the DNG file that is output by the camera's software".

My original point, which I'm pretty sure most people understood, is that you only have luminance values in a DNG produced by a monochrome sensor, so users have a considerably narrower "range of possibilities" than is the case with a RAW file that preserves the colour information.

2 weeks agopermalink

Boss of Sony

I feel like monochrome photography has had its day. Color is so interesting, and so evocative, that whenever I see a monochrome photograph, underneath I'm thinking: I wish I could see that in color. Humans have evolved to respond to color emotionally and instinctively. For example, the colors of clean, fresh water sources like rivers and lakes instinctively evoke a feeling of calmness. Black and white photographs don't evoke the same instinctive responses.

2 weeks ago*permalink

KjellRS

I wonder if it's a generational thing, like the people who romanticized the hiss, crackle and pop of a gramophone player. If you grew up with it black and white photos triggers some kind of nostalgia, but if you didn't it's like "ehh... why would you NOT have colors?" Though I know some stayed with black and white in order to be able to make their own photos in the darkroom, that's probably the long tail. I don't think the digital generation will ever see what it's all about.

2 weeks agopermalink

ozuidema

Don't think monochrome photography "has had its day". To me, some shots simply work better in B&W, and some shots work better in colour. For instance, shot number 8 (the shoes in a rectangle of light) to me typically is a shot that is much more powerful in B&W. And I don't believe it's a "generation thing" either: plenty of young cats around who shoot monochrome frequently. That said, I wouldn't rush to buy a camera that cannot shoot in colour at all, but it's an interesting niche product for the afficionados.

2 weeks agopermalink

JimP101

I don't think it's a generational thing. I've been shooting as a keen amateur for 40 years, and a full-time professional for 22 years. I love monochrome, but I can't tell you how often the older generation much prefer colour because B&W seems so old-fashioned....
It's a creative decision and sometimes I'm in a mono mood, and sometimes colour. They are two very different representations of an image. Mono relies much more on shape, texture and contrast to work well - it's not an easy option.

But I can say that monochrome photography has not had it's day by any means.

Jim

2 weeks agopermalink

Boss of Sony,

So you'll be getting yourself the colour Leica Q2?

2 weeks agopermalink

linzybel

The appeal of monochrome may be diminishing, but it will last. Why? Without the "distraction" of color, the eye sees depth and volume – the three-dimensional properties of a subject – more vividly. (Yes, I chose the word "vividly" on purpose.) Images of sculptures, faces, and hands come to mind immediately. In these, the monochrome versions will likely highlight details of texture and contour that color images tend to obscure, or at least minimize by comparison.

22 hours agopermalink

Tom Schum

I like the samples taken with 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm crop. Are these functions in the camera, or do you have to do it manually after the fact?
By the way, it looks like the lens and sensor are fully up to the job when it comes to the crops.

2 weeks agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

The camera has a digital teleconverter which saves the full raw in addition to the cropped JPGs.

2 weeks agopermalink

atamola

#3 it's a very nice shot.

2 weeks agopermalink

Flashback

Great images, especially image #3. Takes me back to my dark room days. Well done Chris. . .

2 weeks agopermalink

Clickalot

That sensor needs an antidepressant.

2 weeks agopermalink

Some very good images. But still, digital. Sorry.

2 weeks agopermalink

Radovan

You can add blur, grain, artifacts and cigarette burns in post

2 weeks agopermalink

Radovan: You don't say! It will still have a digital look. Nothing wrong with that, but the difference is there.

2 weeks agopermalink

Reactive

Before perusing these shots, I'd forgotten how dull the world is (and photographs are) when devoid of colour. Certainly nothing in any of these shots demonstrate why you'd want to spend a fortune on a camera that can never record colour, when you could buy a much cheaper Canon R5 that does everything, and still give you gallery quality mono shots if the mood takes you.

2 weeks agopermalink

Photodog2

Is there such as a thing as a monitor calibrated for black and white? I'm liking some of the images but wondering if a better monitor would make me like the ones I don't. Nonetheless, I find that a print is where B&W images shine most.

2 weeks ago*permalink

AstroStan

It's possible that the lens is less than perfect as maybe revealed by the few full-field landscapes. Enlarge #37 to 100% and notice that the far right side horizon looks sharp but the far left side seems softer. But it is difficult to be certain due to the variation in land details. I wish these galleries had more technically challenging and revealing photos.

2 weeks ago*permalink

I hear you, but technical analysis and comparison with other gear is only really feasible when looking at images taken under controlled conditions.

The dpr studio comparison tool isn't perfect, but is pretty good for checking sharpness, noise, dynamic range, field curvature etc.

The galleries are really for checking vignetting, flare, starbursts and bokeh, so galleries should be photographed with those purposes in mind.

I do agree that a wider range of subjects could be chosen, e.g. including a finely flat grid such as a piece of graph paper, which would help enormously when judging corner sharpness and barrel/pincushion distortion. It's pretty easy to ensure that the graph paper is parallel and square to the sensor, after all.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Lessiter

Entoman the Q2 lens is software corrected in the extreme. Any barrel distortion is intentionally left in there. The raw files, when opened in capable software, show brutal vignette to black and huge barrel distortion. Lens is still sharp after correction though.

2 weeks agopermalink

photo_rb

Going through this gallery, it really takes me back to my b&w film days. I've never skimmed through a similar gallery of b&w from a colour sensor to see if it would be the same feeling but other than grain structure this one really worked for me.

2 weeks agopermalink

Yes, grain structure. No grain-simulation tool in PS, Affinity or any of the other image editor that I've used, really captures the "organic" feel of film grain, and I doubt if it ever will.

For serious monochrome work, no matter how good the Leica may be, I prefer film. It's an entirely different art (or craft, if you prefer) from digital. As different as a watercolour is from an oil painting.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Constantin V

@entoman how very true. Not only grain but many other things too.

2 weeks agopermalink

photo_rb

Well, when I was shooting film I was either going with the absolute least grain I could get which meant large format or ASA 12 35mm film in special developers or I was going for the biggest meanest grain I could get...no in-betweens. :-)

Regarding the ASA 12 in case anyone calls me on that, I'm pretty sure I used that but may be misremembering. I certainly used ASA 25 PanX.

2 weeks agopermalink

photo_rb - I generally choose the film according to my needs, in terms of grain (and of course, sensitivity), so for some images I want no visible grain, for others I want a subtle grain to give the image "texture", and occasionally I want a harsh grainy effect.

The great thing about film grain, as opposed to digital grain, is that the former produces random clumping, rather than a uniform pattern, so the feeling is far more organic and pleasing to the eyes (or at least, to my eyes).

2 weeks agopermalink

Tom Schum

Not many content-aware grain tools out there but this one seems to be pretty good. I haven't downloaded the free trial, since if I want to buy the package it is $129, but their grain tool is definitely content-aware:
https://exposure.software/tutorial/adding-film-grain/
From their text: "Use the Amount controls to designate where grain effects will appear, whether in the image’s shadows, midtones, or highlights. The decision of where to emphasize the grain is largely an artistic choice, but an even distribution of grain will usually look more like noise than real grain from analog film."

2 weeks agopermalink

photo_rb

Honestly I have no interest in simulating grain myself. With film photography I hope not to notice it and when I do, I consider it objectionable. Maybe because I worked for commercial clients and the grain never added to the image, except in rare occasions where I emphasized the grain for "creative" effect.

When I commented that the photos in the gallery reminded me of film photography except for the grain, I didn't intend that as a bad thing. :-)

2 weeks agopermalink

photo_rb - Agreed. I hate to see noise in my (colour) digital images, and go to considerable lengths to minimse it while at the same time retaining fine detail.

I feel differently about monochrome film though - maybe just because I grew up in a world where grain was an accepted (and often celebrated) characteristic of film images.

Simulated grain (or simulated anything else, for that matter) is definitely not something that would remotely interest me. What other people like, is of course entirely up to them.

2 weeks agopermalink

I'll never understand the desire for grain/noise in a photograph. I've yet to see an image improved by either!

2 weeks agopermalink

Constantin V

@deep7 there is a common misunderstanding that having a camera always makes person gifted visually. It's ok that you don't see what it's all about.

2 weeks agopermalink

deep7 - There are many ways to represent a subject artistically.

Do you understand why artists use a variety of mediums, such as watercolours, pen & ink, etching, engraving etc?

Do you understand why artists use a variety of techniques and styles such as cubism, pointilism, post-impressionism etc, even though they might all be painting the same scene?

Do you understand why film photographers use effects filters, posterisation, "soot and whitewash", low key, and other styles?

I can understand why you don't *like* a particular style, such as choosing a high ISO film and a particular developer to exaggerate grain, but if you don't *understand* it, what else can I say?

2 weeks agopermalink

Constantin V and entoman: Do either of you realise that noise/grain turn up because digital/film capture are imperfect and they don't represent what is actually there? It's a side-effect of that imperfection, not usually considered desirable and rarely there as an artistic choice.

Yes, we all know that various artists use various media and various techniques, some to good effect and many not so much.

It's the same here. Sometimes, a grainy look adds to an image but, mostly, it isn't art, it's imperfection which is justified as art. If you don't "understand" that, you don't "understand" art!

2 weeks agopermalink

deep7 - Of course it's true that grain (and digital noise) are side-effects, and that for many subjects they are an undesirable and detail-destroying distraction. No one is arguing with that.

What we are talking about is your apparent dismissal of the *deliberate* use of grain or noise for artistic effect (as illustrated by your comment "I've yet to see an image improved by either!").

I'd suggest that if you saw both "grainy" and "grainless" versions of many images, that you might come to retract your words, having realised that in some instances you *do* prefer the grainy version.

You may not like it, but it can be used as a tool to create an ambience. It depends on what you are photographing, and on what kind of "mood" you are trying to create.

I remember e.g. the way photographers clamoured to obtain GAF 500 colour film, precisely because they *wanted* the exaggerated grain. It was the raison d'etre for the product.

2 weeks ago*permalink

"I'd suggest that if you saw both "grainy" and "grainless" versions of many images, that you might come to retract your words, having realised that in some instances you *do* prefer the grainy version."

You'd be very wrong.

2 weeks agopermalink

Constantin V

@deep7> Do either of you realise that noise/grain turn up because digital/film capture are imperfect and they don't represent what is actually there?

Oh? It's useless to say that, but let me put it that way... The whole thing is not about 'what is actually there'. It never was. I mean with this attitude you actually lack the main piece imho.

> Sometimes, a grainy look adds to an image but, mostly, it isn't art, it's imperfection which is justified as art.

This simplified binary logic of "+" and "-" is flawed. Making love is imperfect process, so drop it once and for all then.:) I'm for instance is not tolerant, in no way saint and generally imperfect.) And I rather prefer to be that way and be able to draw with a pencil by hand (so imperfect!) then going on and on here about noise and sharpness.) I'm not going to speak with you seriously about psychological aspects of human perception as well.:) (senseless for both of us)

2 weeks ago*permalink

Foskito

After seeing many samples from this camera, my conclusion is there is no need to invest 6 grand in a dedicated BW camera to produce great BW pictures.

2 weeks agopermalink

CaPi

Not for the pictures maybe,
But for yourself.
Its pretty

2 weeks agopermalink

Foskito

Yes CaPi, that's correct!

2 weeks agopermalink

Vit Adamek

Animated adds in gallery :-( Really detracts from viewing experience as it pulls your eyes. I have no add block but that wil make me consider it.

2 weeks agopermalink

Yes, animated ads are always an irritation, the curse of commercial websites, but at least in this instance it's easy to remove them from view:

Just grab your window and move it to the right, so the advert is outside the desktop area.

2 weeks agopermalink

Vit Adamek

Partial solution as won't work when you use full screen view option to have better viewing experience.

2 weeks agopermalink

GutoDP

penguins everywhere...

2 weeks agopermalink

King Penguin

Yep.......penguins everywhere......... :)

2 weeks agopermalink

It's quite dificult to form any conclusions about the quality of the sensor or the lens from these gallery shots.

But they do make one point very apparent - monochrome photography is much more difficult than colour. Many of the gallery shots would have worked well in colour, but have failed completely as monochrome images. That's not a criticism, just an observation :-)

Potential subjects need a great deal of thought as to whether they respond better to colour or monochrome treatment. Using a mono-only cameras forces the photographer to *see* in monochrome, and therefore generally results in better images than those obtained by converting to mono in post, as an afterthought.

2 weeks agopermalink

badi

However, converting in post has the huge benefit of being able to tweak the luminance of every channel. For me that is the most important thing in modern b&w. It is almost impossible to achieve with colored filtered no matter how hard you try (well, sure there is the tripod option where you switch several filers. blend them, etc...).
There are cameras (if not most) where you can view in B&W through the viewfinder or screen and save both the B&W version and the full data raw.

But sure, there in no denying that the absence of the color filter gives amazing gradations and details.

2 weeks ago*permalink

badi - I agree. My comments however were not about whether converting from colour produces higher or lower IQ, but were about my belief that using a mono-only camera produces better *compositions* as a result of the way it forces a photographer to pre-visualise everything in mono.

(I don't use a MILC, but yes, I can see that previewing in B&W would be possible)

2 weeks ago*permalink

Having shot b&w film for years (I stopped doing that some months ago) next to a dslr taught me how to look at photographable scenes. I routinely produce a virtual copy in LR of almost all my D850 images, purely for converting into b&w from raw and comparing with the colour version. Sometimes b&w is better, sometimes it isn't. Keep looking, keep visualising.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Tom Schum

According to the Leica Store in Manchester there is a set of three Leica color filters for this camera. Looks like they are 125 pounds per filter and I couldn't find a price for the set, unfortunately.

2 weeks agopermalink