digitalfx Posted June 22, 2015 Share #21 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Ah yes, the famous forum backtrack manoeuvre. As you can see from the first post, the Q lens in uncorrected form doesn't look like many other 28mm's on the market. It's because it's probably not a strictly 28mm lens until its been digitally fixed for the distortion and circular image (black corners). So clearly not all 28mm lenses aren't all 28mm lenses, and What You See many not be What You're Really Getting. Yes, clearly you don't understand. No backtrack here. WYSWYG is a response to this question: "Also, when you are composing, do the screen and the OVF show the uncorrected or the correct version? (i.e. do you need to assume the borders of the frame you are seeing while composing will be cropped by the camera/Lightroom?)" What you see in the Q EVF and VF is the exact same thing you will get when you open the file in LR and process it. What do you not understand about this? What is happening behind the scenes is irrelevant...you will never see this. Edited June 22, 2015 by digitalfx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 Hi digitalfx, Take a look here 28mm focal length, but what is the actual field of view after lens correction?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted June 22, 2015 Share #22 Posted June 22, 2015 The whole discussion demonstrates what Leica achieves by not giving precise data for the lenses anymore: distrust and confusion. If we knew that the actual focal length of the Q-lens was a little bit less than 28mm the "cropping" by in-camera correction might achieve 28.5mm of the 28 Summicron-M or 28.4 for the Elmarit-M. Though this forum might have a second chance. Is there nobody with a Q who also has an M with a 28mm lens, who might show if there really is any difference and how "big" it is? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 22, 2015 Share #23 Posted June 22, 2015 Though this forum might have a second chance. Is there nobody with a Q who also has an M with a 28mm lens, who might show if there really is any difference and how "big" it is? This was posted in another thread by Jono: "...in fact, when I was comparing it to the M240 with the 28 'lux the corrected field of view was slightly wider than that of the 'lux." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 22, 2015 Share #24 Posted June 22, 2015 The whole discussion demonstrates what Leica achieves by not giving precise data for the lenses anymore: distrust and confusion. I don't think this is the case. Leica gave very explicit information about the focal length and the format of the picture taken. Yet we find members who doubt the veracity of that information. Had Leica given more information about the lens, who can say whether the very same members didn't doubt the veracity of the additional information as well? I don't think anyone has succeeded here in demonstrating why the question posed here should matter at all. The viewfinder or the screen at the rear of the camera shows an image. I've no doubt that the phone or tablet connected via WLAN to the camera will show the same image. The final image which leaves the camera and enters the PP will be the same image, if the PP is properly done. What does it matter if the actual focal length is a bit more or less? On the other hand, should it really matter that much, a test would not be all that difficult to perform. One very simple test would be to take a picture of something at two different scales. The resulting distances between the camera and the object can be measured. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted June 22, 2015 Share #25 Posted June 22, 2015 On the other hand, what remains from the 24MP? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 22, 2015 Share #26 Posted June 22, 2015 The image format is said to be 24x36mm. The image delivered by the camera is said to hold 6000x4000px. The sensor is said to hold 26.3MP. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted June 22, 2015 Share #27 Posted June 22, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks, I was kidding. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted June 22, 2015 Share #28 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) All power to software, this brings the Q back to the field not apart from other cameras ........ fair enough ........ now the quibble for some becomes the price. why so much for the glass? Edited June 22, 2015 by Imants Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 22, 2015 Share #29 Posted June 22, 2015 All power to software, this brings the Q back to the field not apart from other cameras ........ fair enough ........ now the quibble for some becomes the price. why so much for the glass? When you subtract the price of the body, the lens is 300% less than the M version of the 28mm Summilux. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted June 22, 2015 Share #30 Posted June 22, 2015 The Q is a combination of a computer and a single lens. The results are superb, so why having any problems when they use the computer to bring the lens to his best? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 22, 2015 Share #31 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) I don't own this camera, but I can see that it opens up a creative avenue for anyone with an artistic or rebellious side. That is: process and show every image in its uncorrected form. The more people keep saying you "can't see" the uncorrected original, or "you'll never see" the uncorrected original, the more it invites doing exactly that and doing only that. Similar things have been done with other cameras and other formats, so I'm pretty sure someone will do it with the Q too. Edited June 22, 2015 by zlatkob 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 23, 2015 Share #32 Posted June 23, 2015 "Fisheye" or barrel distortion always includes more scenery for a given focal length. Compare a 10mm fisheye with a 10mm rectilinear lens, and the "fish" will include a lot more, around the edges. http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fisheye-lenses-underwater https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Curvilinear-vs-Rectilinear-Lens.jpg The barrel distortion squeezes in more scenery, by virtue of making objects around the edges progressively smaller (thus the curves in lines). In the center of the picture, all 28s will reproduce the world essentially the same size (as a proportion of the frame dimensions). Around the edge, a heavily barrel-distorting lens includes more stuff - but that is due to the distortion, not due to a different focal length. Correcting the distortion - which means: stretching things until the lines are no longer curved, also restores the total field of view to what an undistorting 28 would have produced in the first place. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 23, 2015 Share #33 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) The barrel distortion squeezes in more scenery, by virtue of making objects around the edges progressively smaller (thus the curves in lines). In the center of the picture, all 28s will reproduce the world essentially the same size (as a proportion of the frame dimensions). Around the edge, a heavily barrel-distorting lens includes more stuff - but that is due to the distortion, not due to a different focal length. Thanks Andy, Thats exactly what I'm seeing. The edges show about 5% more, while the center is roughly the same size. Edited June 23, 2015 by digitalfx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted June 24, 2015 Share #34 Posted June 24, 2015 OP Suggest to go to your nearest Leica store that has a demo copy of a Q. Take your own SD card and try it out versus some other 28mm of the same shots. Once home you can compare on the computer/software you would be using if acquiring this wonderful camera. Why wonderful? I have owned over 14 digital M's and this one has spoiled me before I could read the manual on how to use it! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 24, 2015 Share #35 Posted June 24, 2015 I am using Capture One to process the files, seems to work just fine and recognizes all the data from the files. And i see no difference between this and LR on the DNG capture. BUT, and this is the point of my post.....the DNG and JPG files are exactly the same size yet when I go to crop the DNG file there is more room around the picture (more on the sides than top and bottom, and a little more on the top). Originally I though this was a quirky aspect of C1 because it isn't yet set for the Q. When i go to crop the JPG file no added picture shows up. My guess is that C1 is pulling in the full FOV of the camera and the JPG is holding to the advertised 28mm. One other point, I understand the math about cropping and how MPs are left. I think, however, this is somewhat misleading. The depth and 3d characteristics that a better sensor delivers is negated back to a smaller lesser MP sensor because you are cropping. Otherwise, there is no real advance from sensor to sensor in terms of IQ once you start to crop. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie.lcf Posted June 24, 2015 Share #36 Posted June 24, 2015 There is a visible difference in ISO behaviour between the Q's fullframe 24MP sensor an the X (113) APS-C 16MP crop sensor. I would suggest that the difference of the Q sensor remains visible even if you crop it down to 16MP, for the image to match the X in size and focal length (talking about 35mm). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 24, 2015 Share #37 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) I am using Capture One to process the files, seems to work just fine and recognizes all the data from the files. And i see no difference between this and LR on the DNG capture. BUT, and this is the point of my post.....the DNG and JPG files are exactly the same size yet when I go to crop the DNG file there is more room around the picture (more on the sides than top and bottom, and a little more on the top). Originally I though this was a quirky aspect of C1 because it isn't yet set for the Q. When i go to crop the JPG file no added picture shows up. My guess is that C1 is pulling in the full FOV of the camera and the JPG is holding to the advertised 28mm. One other point, I understand the math about cropping and how MPs are left. I think, however, this is somewhat misleading. The depth and 3d characteristics that a better sensor delivers is negated back to a smaller lesser MP sensor because you are cropping. Otherwise, there is no real advance from sensor to sensor in terms of IQ once you start to crop. It sounds like you have selected the crop option. This is exactly how the camera is supposed to work. Make sure you have crop turned off...its the small flat button underneath the shutter speed dial. Pushing it will cycle thru 3 positions. No crop, 35mm crop and 50mm crop. If you see frame lines in the EVF and LCD, you have this engaged which crops the JPEG files and flags the RAW files to start in crop mode. This is normal behavior. Edited June 24, 2015 by digitalfx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 24, 2015 Share #38 Posted June 24, 2015 Nope. No crop option chosen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 24, 2015 Share #39 Posted June 24, 2015 Nope. No crop option chosen. seems like an issue with C1 then...LR does not do this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted June 24, 2015 Share #40 Posted June 24, 2015 could be ........ but the LR crop, dng and jpg, match the C1 jpg pic in terms of the borders. just saying that in this raw translation, no official C1 release yet for the Q, perhaps C1 is picking the actual wider FOv suggested by many -- the lens is really 24mm or 25mm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.