Using the Q like an M

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am enjoying the ability to set the 35mm (and sometimes the 50mm) frameline/digital zoom because you can look through the EVF as you would be looking through an optical viewfinder and look around the edges and see what is going on there and whether it is moving into your frame.   The 35mm image is 16mp which is plenty for most purposes.  This is another reason I am happy with Leica's choice of the 28mm focal length.  But suppose at some point in the future we had a 100mp or even larger sensor and a fixed 24mm lens?  Wouldn't that give us even more focal lengths to play with? Maybe even enough so you wouldn't need anything else?   Don't pooh pooh 100mp.   The technology is moving very rapidly; Canon is over 50mp already.  Or am I not understanding the technology and why this wouldn't work?

 

 

[digitalfx]

a cropped 28 does not make a 35...but even more so, a cropped 28 will never replace a 90mm

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AlanJW]

a cropped 28 does not make a 35...but even more so, a cropped 28 will never replace a 90mm

Okay, but would you kindly explain why a cropped 28 cropped to 35 and 16mp is not the same as a 35mm.  I am not challenging.  I just want to understand what I am getting wrong.

[asiafish]

Okay, but would you kindly explain why a cropped 28 cropped to 35 and 16mp is not the same as a 35mm.  I am not challenging.  I just want to understand what I am getting wrong.

Depth of field.

[AlanJW]

Depth of field.

Doh. (Smacking forehead with paIm). I guess that's right unless you can control it with your feet (distance from subject).  I guess I was smitten by the 35mm inside the 28mm.

[jlindstrom]

But depending on what you're comparing with it might not make a difference (@35). For example the X typ113 has a 23mm lens that's cropped by aps-c sensor to 35mm full frame equivalent.

 

Comparing to that cropping a 28mm FF sensor view to 35mm gets you much closer to "real 35mm" than the X113 ever gets. And you get almost same ammount of megapixels too. Nobody was complaining the X-series weren't real 35's.

 

So don't be disturbed by academic discussions, but keep shooting & enjoying what you're doing like you've done so far. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

 

I reckon most of the ones complaing are used to shooting 35mm instead of 28mm and are complaining because they were hoping to get FF 35mm compact.

 

//Juha

[bernie.lcf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Q basically gives you 35mm equivalent the way a Leica M8/8.2 does (1.3x crop), but at better ISO and higher resolution - 15MP for the Q vs. 10.2MP for the M8/M8.2

 

The crop mode in the Q has been discussed at length. In my opinion this is a difficult discussion because almost everybody will have a very personal view on this. Each view is totally valid, but they contradict each other and this will lead to emotional postings if we are not careful.

 

In essence, the Q is a fullframe camera with a 28mm lens. That's all it is.

Some people will like the crop modes, others will consider it useless as you can crop more efficiently in Photoshop or Lightroom. Both views are valid - personal working style.

Some people will consider it useless to use a Q and then crop it down to APS-H or less - they will suggest that you get an MFT camera instead (2x crop - almost similar to the Q cropped to 50mm). Valid point, just not my point. 

 

My personal take is:

I am coming from an M8.2 which has 1.3 crop. I was using several focal length, among them a 28/2.8 (35mm equivalent on the M8). I was thinking about buying an X 113 for the extra stop (f1.7) and the better ISO performance for those situations. The 1.5x crop is a compromise, but any other solution would have cost much more money: Summilux 28

In my personal case, the Q gives me a fullframe camera with a focal length of 28mm that I find quite attractive. When I engage the crop mode, it will give me the same as my old M8.2 at higher resolution and much better high ISO performance. The 35mm mode will also beat an X (113) because the Q is overall the batter camera (better EVF, EVF built-in, better ISO, faster AF,less crop, etc.).

With the Q I gain a lot and the only thing I miss is having something around 50/60. The Q will go down to 1.9x crop and 8MP - this is a compromise that I was willing to accept as I don't use that focal length very often. 

 

For me, the Q including its crop mode makes total sens as the package is around 4000 EUR. Any other Leica based solution would have cost significantly more: either buy a Summilux for the M8.2 or switch to M9/M (240)... and there are reasons I prefer having a Leica kit to using MFT, Nikon, Canon or even Sony (been there, done that).

 

My personal situation will almost certainly not apply to anyone else out there, some will even call it outrageously dumb.

There is also no doubt that you can find equivalent or better setups (i.e. go for a Sony A7R-II kit or go back to DSLR).

 

As I said: very personal views, hard to discuss.

[Big T]

The Q basically gives you 35mm equivalent the way a Leica M8/8.2 does (1.3x crop), but at better ISO and higher resolution - 15MP for the Q vs. 10.2MP for the M8/M8.2

 

The crop mode in the Q has been discussed at length. In my opinion this is a difficult discussion because almost everybody will have a very personal view on this. Each view is totally valid, but they contradict each other and this will lead to emotional postings if we are not careful.

 

In essence, the Q is a fullframe camera with a 28mm lens. That's all it is.

Some people will like the crop modes, others will consider it useless as you can crop more efficiently in Photoshop or Lightroom. Both views are valid - personal working style.

Some people will consider it useless to use a Q and then crop it down to APS-H or less - they will suggest that you get an MFT camera instead (2x crop - almost similar to the Q cropped to 50mm). Valid point, just not my point. 

 

My personal take is:

I am coming from an M8.2 which has 1.3 crop. I was using several focal length, among them a 28/2.8 (35mm equivalent on the M8). I was thinking about buying an X 113 for the extra stop (f1.7) and the better ISO performance for those situations. The 1.5x crop is a compromise, but any other solution would have cost much more money: Summilux 28

In my personal case, the Q gives me a fullframe camera with a focal length of 28mm that I find quite attractive. When I engage the crop mode, it will give me the same as my old M8.2 at higher resolution and much better high ISO performance. The 35mm mode will also beat an X (113) because the Q is overall the batter camera (better EVF, EVF built-in, better ISO, faster AF,less crop, etc.).

With the Q I gain a lot and the only thing I miss is having something around 50/60. The Q will go down to 1.9x crop and 8MP - this is a compromise that I was willing to accept as I don't use that focal length very often. 

 

For me, the Q including its crop mode makes total sens as the package is around 4000 EUR. Any other Leica based solution would have cost significantly more: either buy a Summilux for the M8.2 or switch to M9/M (240)... and there are reasons I prefer having a Leica kit to using MFT, Nikon, Canon or even Sony (been there, done that).

 

My personal situation will almost certainly not apply to anyone else out there, some will even call it outrageously dumb.

There is also no doubt that you can find equivalent or better setups (i.e. go for a Sony A7R-II kit or go back to DSLR).

 

As I said: very personal views, hard to discuss.

 

You are definately not alone on this. I also come from the same background as you (M8.2) and totally agree with your position.

 

I will use the crop modes from time to time. Especially the 35mm crop. 

 

Now all I need is a Q...... Waiting, waiting.......

[AlanJW]

My real affection for the Q is not the crop per se, but that because the lens is 28mm you can see outside the 35mm frame, just like you can in a Optical RF M camera.   

[prk60091]

All the above are valid reasons for the Q (as evidenced by a) reasons stated above and Leica thought of it first by enabling the crop ''in camera".  All of my experimentation with the Q last weekend was at 28mm I can see experimenting with in camera 35mm & 50 mm crop depending on the situation.  There is no 1 right way to use the camera, and the Q is the future of image taking.

Edited July 7, 2015 by prk60091

[asiafish]

But depending on what you're comparing with it might not make a difference (@35). For example the X typ113 has a 23mm lens that's cropped by aps-c sensor to 35mm full frame equivalent.

 

Comparing to that cropping a 28mm FF sensor view to 35mm gets you much closer to "real 35mm" than the X113 ever gets. And you get almost same ammount of megapixels too. Nobody was complaining the X-series weren't real 35's.

 

So don't be disturbed by academic discussions, but keep shooting & enjoying what you're doing like you've done so far. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.

 

I reckon most of the ones complaing are used to shooting 35mm instead of 28mm and are complaining because they were hoping to get FF 35mm compact.

 

//Juha

Nobody was saying that X was a real 35mm either.

 

I find the X with its 23mm f/1.7 has slightly deeper depth of field as my M-E does with the 35mm f/2.5 Summarit when both are wide open.  Q with its 28mm lens should be about the same as the 35mm f/2.5 Summarit wide open, or a tad narrower.

[wda]

Your topic title is a delusion. The two cameras follow entirely different concepts.

[AlanJW]

Your topic title is a delusion. The two cameras follow entirely different concepts.

Maybe I am delusional.   You are not the first to say that.     Of course the M and the Q are different.  That is why I have kept both an M240 and a M246.  And I still prefer my Ms for anything serious.  But the Q can be used as more than a P&S too. My point is limited to the way you look through the viewfinder and can see beyond the frame lines and I do not think I am alone in liking that.   Maybe we are all delusional.

[asiafish]

Maybe I am delusional.   You are not the first to say that.     Of course the M and the Q are different.  That is why I have kept both an M240 and a M246.  And I still prefer my Ms for anything serious.  But the Q can be used as more than a P&S too. My point is limited to the way you look through the viewfinder and can see beyond the frame lines and I do not think I am alone in liking that.   Maybe we are all delusional.

I understood it perfectly and agree that it is one of the key aspects of a rangefinder camera that sets it apart from other types.