apparent angle of view

[Nei1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looked at a lot of X1 photos both here and on flicker and more often than not feel that the lens is wider than 35mm.Now Im sure its not but Im wondering if anyone else has the same perception and if so why .

[jsrockit]

Why do you feel that way? Is it because of the lens' distortion at times?

[Dan States]

For me live view makes "filling the frame" easier. With M cameras there is a tendancy to think you are closer in than you really are: When you actually examine the taken frame there is a lot more 'stuff' around the edges....I wasn't as close as I thought. I tend to shoot closer and at stronger angles to the subject using live view cameras.

[jsrockit]

If you have the first M8, the frame lines aren't accurate on the top and to the left. I always have to compensate for that. I hate it.

[Nei1]

thanks to you both for your replies:).my question is more basic,.......the lens on the x1 seems to have a wider view than my film m and 35mm lens used in similar stuations.now this is unlikely but is it possible that a 24mm lens on a cropped sensor could give a different relationship between the objects in the image than a 35mm lens on full frame.is there not more likelihood of distortion of this relationship of objects with a 24mm lens than with a 35mm.

[markgay]

The X1 has a 24mm Elmarit lens. This means it retains the characteristics of a wide angle lens, even though the sensor only uses the central portion of the image, cropped to the equivalent of a 35mm lens.

 

I find this to be a lens with pretty low distortion. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7RSxJmgQNkQ/S5IbOnOT8_I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/eKIykcc6tUo/s1600/EmbankmentHouseFacade.jpg I'm sure that's one reason Leica restricted the aperture to f/2.8. Anything wider on a small lens is likely to require additional correction in software.

 

However you need to remember it is a 24mm. Faces close to the edge of the frame will show perspective distortion.

 

Regards,

Mark

Money Circus

 

.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...Faces close to the edge of the frame will show perspective distortion...

 

mmmh, may I correct you?

 

The typical wide angle effect is because with them we can get closer to the subject, and not because it is inherent to the lens. In other words, perspective (ie, the relatonship between what it is near and far) is determined by the distance between the camera and the scene. What happens is that when being close to the scene we use a wide angle, and when being at a great distance we use a tele! And so it is normal to think that the wide angle or tele is responsible of the perspective: no, it's the distance beetween camera and scene that is responsible for that.

 

If the faces close to the edge of the frame are distant, and you use a tele, there won't be 'perspective distortion', as you call it.

[SJP]

Agree with manolo, focal length is irrelevant for perspective. Only camera to subject distance is a factor irrespective of focal length and crop factor. The relation between effective focal length and crop factor is exact - not some approximation - so assuming Leica can do their arithmatic the effective focal length of 35 mm must be correct.

 

The X1 will have the depth of field character of a wide angle lens (i.e. more depth of field than a 35/2.8 would give on full-frame effectively behaving like approx. 35/4), but that is not the same as perspective.

 

Some examples here 90 tele-elmarit on Flickr - Photo Sharing! 90 mm TE 28 cron-crop on Flickr - Photo Sharing! 28 mm cron, cropped to 90 mm frame, same camera to shark distance

 

perspective is the same - DoF is different

[Nei1]

So just to finish this off,....the central portion of a 24mm lens used on a cropped sensor will give an identical image to a 35mm on a full frame......yes or no?

.............could someone with an X1 and an M9 take a photo with both just to prove to me that Im slipping gracefully towards senility,...........thanks:rolleyes:

p.s.just to add that Im a great fan of this camera and its only its cost that stops me from having one.

[adan]

I think the extra depth of field from using a crop out of a 24 f/2.8 instead of a FF 35 f/2 or f/2.8 (at any given f/stop) is one factor in the apparent extra "wideness".

 

On the M8, my 21 (cropped to "28mm") always "felt" wider than 28 - more like a 25mm - although in direct comparisons to a real 28mm on 24 x 36 it was not actually any wider.

 

When I had a IIIc/50 Elmar back in college, the aperture would stop down well beyond the marked f/16 - to f/22 or something even smaller - a real pinhole. Shots I made at that tiny aperture "looked" like they'd been shot with a 35 or 40mm lens.

 

We associate extreme DoF with "wider lens", so when we see it, we make that subconcious assumption. In the same way, f/1 shots with a Nocti give the impression of being shot with a short tele - or at any rate, are vaguely disturbing because the DoF just seems far too narrow for the FoV.

[jsrockit]

To be honest, it feels the same to me in use and I don't see a difference.

[mjh]

I think the extra depth of field from using a crop out of a 24 f/2.8 instead of a FF 35 f/2 or f/2.8 (at any given f/stop) is one factor in the apparent extra "wideness".

While that might be the case, a 35 mm lens on the M9, stopped down to f4, would give about the same DoF as the X1 lens at f2.8.