My lens conundrum.. your thoughts please!

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All I can say is I liked 50mm on my M8 (69mm), love my 75 Lux on the M9, had a 90 and used on both and sold it, best decision I made, 90 is a zoom for me. much happier down the wider end personally

[philipus]

I went shooting with the lens for precisely the reason you mentioned. I took the lens alone out several times.

 

When I bought the lens I originally thought I liked shooting people from further back. Turns out as my work has matured and changed I don't see shots at all at the telephoto end. I thought I did. My best shots are all wide to mid.

 

I took the lens on a 2 week trip also and perhaps took 6/7 shots with it. My brain doesn't like it- and I'm not 'seeing' the FL anymore. I never did.

 

I won't give you advice as to what I like, but it seems to me that you right in selling the 75 to get the 50 Summilux. The above also suggests you don't really need a longer lens at the moment. But, if you decide you do, and since money appears to be an issue, get the comparably inexpensive and absolutely fantastic 90 Elmarit-M, which can be had for less than 1000€ and which performs virtually on par across its aperture range with the latest 90 Summicron.

 

Good luck

Philip

[honcho]

Would make perfect sense to sell it. You don't use it, which means you don't need it. Other people's preferences on angle of view are irrelevant, so convert it into something you will use.

[jankap]

You now crop your 35 mm pictures to 50 mm (1.4 times), I suppose.

Why not stay with this? It is only a small step.

By the way, do you use your 21 sem?

Jan

[satureyes]

You now crop your 35 mm pictures to 50 mm (1.4 times), I suppose.

Why not stay with this? It is only a small step.

By the way, do you use your 21 sem?

Jan

 

I dont' crop all the time.. in fact I try not to crop. I don't want to shoot 35mm thinking that I am shooting 50- it's not how I work and cropping is not the same as shooting natively at that FL.

 

Also - I've mentioned that I want to shoot as video too - and you can't crop video with a big loss of resolution, so I'm seeing my kit as video and photo compatible.

 

I may also get another M body - so would want lenses on each - I would prob keep the 35/21 on one body and the 50 on the other.

 

I do use the 21SEM all the time. I love it.

[microview]

Just make sure you are happy with the weight of the 50mm lens in chrome: I have found them just too heavy to enjoy. (Don't wish to throw a spanner in the works......)

[satureyes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just make sure you are happy with the weight of the 50mm lens in chrome: I have found them just too heavy to enjoy. (Don't wish to throw a spanner in the works......)

 

Compared to a 1DX, and 3 lenses...Won't be an issue for me.

 

Plus it looks lovely and I'm superficial.

[gberger]

I had a 75 earlier on, and sold it because I needed an external viewfinder to really compose with the lens. The 75 frame lines in the current M series are a joke.

 

The 50 Lux is a superb lens. You'll love it. Get the black one.

 

Just my ancient three cents.

[pfhrased]

Compared to a 1DX, and 3 lenses...Won't be an issue for me.

 

Plus it looks lovely and I'm superficial.

 

It does pull the camera forward a lot more than the black aluminium versions though - that's my experience with the 50 lux in chrome. The camera is much more settled with my 35 FLE.

 

It definitely does look lovely.

[CaptZoom]

Also - I've mentioned that I want to shoot as video too - and you can't crop video with a big loss of resolution, so I'm seeing my kit as video and photo compatible.

I'm confused with is statement. Are you say you can crop with little loss of resolution in video, or that cropping in video results in a significant loss of resolution.

 

I always thought video could be cropped quite a bit if shooting with high resolution cameras. HD video is around 2mp. So if you're shooting with 18mp, doesn't that give a lot of room for cropping? It's also my understanding that down rezing results in all sorts of artifacts in video, which is why high end video cameras try to stay close to final output resolution. I'm not a videographer, so I could be wrong about all of this.

[satureyes]

I'm confused with is statement. Are you say you can crop with little loss of resolution in video, or that cropping in video results in a significant loss of resolution.

 

I always thought video could be cropped quite a bit if shooting with high resolution cameras. HD video is around 2mp. So if you're shooting with 18mp, doesn't that give a lot of room for cropping? It's also my understanding that down rezing results in all sorts of artifacts in video, which is why high end video cameras try to stay close to final output resolution. I'm not a videographer, so I could be wrong about all of this.

 

If you shoot HD then yes - the equivalent size image is around 2mp. So a frame grab would give you a photo that is 1920x1080 pixels.

Zooming in or cropping the footage is like dropping a 2mp photo. It's a little like a 'digital zoom some compact cameras have.

 

Once the image is recorded it's not like there is any more of the sensor used.

 

If I was shooting in HD but my final project was SD then I'd have space to play with because the SD frame is 720x576 so there's almost 3 times more horizontal resolution in SD than HD so in theory you could drop a HD image into a SD 'frame' and crop in up to 3x as much.

 

So new formats like 4k would mean shooting at 4k and then dropping that footage into a regular HD timeline you'd have around 2-3 times the areas.

 

 

So, essentially- to conclude. You're wrong.

If you're shooting HD and outputting HD then you have very little leeway - if any to zoom.

 

You can usually 'get away' with adding a small

'creep' onto the lens as an after effect which may pull the image in to around 105% but that 5% will still be a loss in detail.

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

Rick

[CaptZoom]

It does make sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. I have a follow up question: is there any advantage between capturing at the sensor resolution vs the final output resolution? So if the camera has a 20mp sensor and the final output will be 2mp, is there an advantage for capturing at 20mp vs 2mp, or vice versa?*

 

* An advantage apart from being ready for future video resolutions.

 

 

If you shoot HD then yes - the equivalent size image is around 2mp. So a frame grab would give you a photo that is 1920x1080 pixels.

Zooming in or cropping the footage is like dropping a 2mp photo. It's a little like a 'digital zoom some compact cameras have.

 

Once the image is recorded it's not like there is any more of the sensor used.

 

If I was shooting in HD but my final project was SD then I'd have space to play with because the SD frame is 720x576 so there's almost 3 times more horizontal resolution in SD than HD so in theory you could drop a HD image into a SD 'frame' and crop in up to 3x as much.

 

So new formats like 4k would mean shooting at 4k and then dropping that footage into a regular HD timeline you'd have around 2-3 times the areas.

 

 

So, essentially- to conclude. You're wrong.

If you're shooting HD and outputting HD then you have very little leeway - if any to zoom.

 

You can usually 'get away' with adding a small

'creep' onto the lens as an after effect which may pull the image in to around 105% but that 5% will still be a loss in detail.

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

Rick

[satureyes]

It does make sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. I have a follow up question: is there any advantage between capturing at the sensor resolution vs the final output resolution? So if the camera has a 20mp sensor and the final output will be 2mp, is there an advantage for capturing at 20mp vs 2mp, or vice versa?*

 

* An advantage apart from being ready for future video resolutions.

 

You can't capture as 20mp.

 

Megapixels are not something that happen in video world. Even IMAX cinema isn't 20mp. It's about frame size and resolution.

 

At the moment cameras that shoot 4k are appearing but the screens to actually view this footage are very expensive.

 

For video it's a totally different set of rules. It's about the frame size (HD) and bit rate- how much data per second the camera can record.

 

The M can record I think around 45mbps which is good- but the codec it records at and the colour space it uses isn't good enough for broadcast TV on channels like BBC. It's all about the amount of data in each frame.

 

It's like when you watch a TV show and there's fast motion. Sometimes the image goes 'blocky' because the data rate is a bit low and the compression of the signal is affected.

 

So basically- forget the native megapixel count of the cameras because its irrelevant to video.

 

What matters is:

 

Frame size

Frame rate

Codec used

Colours space (sampling) used. - which is also the codec

Data rate of the recording.

 

 

 

Hope this is clearer!

 

Rick

[CaptZoom]

Thanks man, I've got some where to start now.

[Rick]

The M can record I think around 45mbps which is good- but the codec it records at and the colour space it uses isn't good enough for broadcast TV on channels like BBC. It's all about the amount of data in each frame. .

 

The M record at 45-50 Mb/s and it should increase to 55Mb/s with firmware. The color sampling is 4:2:2 which is actually quite good.

 

It's like when you watch a TV show and there's fast motion. Sometimes the image goes 'blocky' because the data rate is a bit low and the compression of the signal is affected.

 

I don't see blocking in any of the video I've shot.

 

 

Having said all of this, the video from the M is pretty good, but it is a little crude compared to other cameras. The rolling shutter is pretty bad. The overall quality of the video is good, but it doesn't hold up to the detail you can expect from a video camera or the 5DIII or the D800. Significantly, there is no HDMI output (compressed or uncompressed).

 

For some travel videos clips, personal video, light client requirements or web videos I imagine it is fine. But, it needs another generation before anyone is going to rave about it.

[satureyes]

The M record at 45-50 Mb/s and it should increase to 55Mb/s with firmware. The color sampling is 4:2:2 which is actually quite good.

 

 

 

I don't see blocking in any of the video I've shot.

 

 

Having said all of this, the video from the M is pretty good, but it is a little crude compared to other cameras. The rolling shutter is pretty bad. The overall quality of the video is good, but it doesn't hold up to the detail you can expect from a video camera or the 5DIII or the D800. Significantly, there is no HDMI output (compressed or uncompressed).

 

For some travel videos clips, personal video, light client requirements or web videos I imagine it is fine. But, it needs another generation before anyone is going to rave about it.

 

I was trying to explain that the video isn't 21mp more than anything else- as for blocking I was referring to TV transmissions to try and explain data rates. Possibly didn't work :-)

 

For slow and deliberate shots its a perfectly good tool. Not too good for tracking shots and so on.

[Rick]

I was trying to explain that the video isn't 21mp more than anything else- as for blocking I was referring to TV transmissions to try and explain data rates. Possibly didn't work :-)

 

For slow and deliberate shots its a perfectly good tool. Not too good for tracking shots and so on.

 

I understand what you were trying to explain. Just clarifying color sampling and bit rate. And, adding my 2 cents worth on the sub par video detail. I was actually pretty disappointed with this. I know Leica is going to update the video firmware and I hope (believe) they will address this.