Jump to content

Do the 28mm make you happy?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was skeptical at first that I would enjoy shooting 28mm, for the past 5 years I shot the x1 which has a 35mm effective FL. Since purchasing my Q about 3weeks ago I have used it almost exclusively ( I took my x1 out for a final spin before selling her) and I can honest say the 35mm FL feels too cramped for me now. Of course YMMV. I for one am not looking back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say 28mm sucks 90% of the time. it is such a shame it is not 35mm

 

the crop is acceptable for the 35mm setting, but rather useless for the 50mm

 

a cropped 35mm from a 28mm lens just looks different then a full frame 35mm.

 

such a shame.

Wow...Clearly, you won't be buying one, so it all works out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of that saying that the best camera in the world is the one you have with you, I'm sure I'm not alone in using my iPhone in that role these days to capture things while out and about that catch my eye. Cropping those images, made necessary by the fixed focus wide-angle lens, yields images which are OK-ish but clearly not up to the standard we are looking for. But, as a document of record, they are fine.

 

Carrying a specialist camera with me all the time just doesn't happen any more unless I am specifically out to take pictures such as a trip away or sporting event. My Nikons delivered over 3500 images over a recent weekend air show for example. That is not the sweet spot of the Q, still less the iPhone yet there were people happily trying to capture things with their phones and they will be invariably disappointed when they look closely. Getting close up is hardly a special requirement and it's here the Q is found wanting and not fit for purpose.

 

But, for what we think of as "street photography" - or the OP's taking pictures of his children - we are increasingly used to using an iPhone and cropping if needed so I see the Q as a high quality alternative. Fixed focal length, wide enough as you reasonably need, with cropping AKA "digital zooming" providing images which are at least acceptable. It's a bit big in the role though.

 

Leica have been trying to expand their user base beyond the expensive system cameras. X1, X2, X-Vario, T, Q, they've had quite a few bites at the cherry. My T is languishing in a drawer somewhere. A slow, unresponsive runt with badly thought out accessories. Maybe the Q will work better for them.

 

Apply the same willingness to crop to an M and what you end up with is the ability to use just 2 or 3 lenses (Say, 21 f3.4, 50 f2 APO, 90 f4) to get great focal length coverage from 21 to 180mm.  If I was able to put those lenses on a body the size of the Q, that might be interesting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have used small RICOH cameras for years. First gr1 (with film) and then grd1 followed by grd3. All with fixed "28mm". So I thought I knew very well what I was getting into. But I find the Leica Q even more useful than the Ricohs, mainly for two reasons. One is that the Q allows you to get very close to subject even without the macro setting. The other is that the combination of full frame and f 1.7 makes it possible to play with DOF in a way that is not usually assosiated with wide angle photography. I have never before felt that digital zoom is an option, but if optical performance and resolution is high enough, of course it is. And if so, I think 28mm is the right choice, at least for me. One reason is that you can crop in, but you can not do the opposite. 

 

Of course there are limitations. There will always be. Carrying a large zoom-lens is limiting, having to change lenses all the time is too. A Leica M camera is a rather slow camera to use. But also a great one. May be there is good sometimes that there is some kind of resistance to keep us alert? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the comments from the cameras' designer that they chose 28mm simply because that allowed for a more compact lens size I'm wondering why size was such an important factor for them, given that it's never going to be a pocketable camera. Would a 35 or 50 have been that much bigger?

 

Alternatively they could have gone for a 40mm pancake style lens, although it would have been a stop slower most probably at say f2.8. 

 

I imagine speed was a big factor, bearing in mind the main things holding back the evidently superb XVario was the reluctance of so many to buy a fixed-lens camera with such a small maximum aperture.

 

But combing good quality, sub f2  and auto-focus nearly always results in very large lenses and to get back to comfortable dimensions would probably have been just too expensive for this type of camera.with a longer focal length. I'm guessing here of course.

 

Like all cameras this is a compromise, but from what I can tell, a very nicely judged set of compromises that result in something very capable and  attractive  to many people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

.... A Leica M camera is a rather slow camera to use. But also a great one. ...

Not in my experience either.  Quite the opposite actually and it's very good at 'getting out of the way' while I'm shooting..

 

Pete.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about the 28mm lens is that I can crop the picture to a 4 by 3 or 4 by 5 ratio and keep the 35mm look in the vertical direction. probably I have used too much MF and M43 in recent times to appreciate the 2 by 3 ratio.

 

It would be nice, if Leica would introduce a custom crop. I doubt it will happen, as they invented 2/3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about the 28mm lens is that I can crop the picture to a 4 by 3 or 4 by 5 ratio and keep the 35mm look in the vertical direction. probably I have used too much MF and M43 in recent times to appreciate the 2 by 3 ratio.

 

It would be nice, if Leica would introduce a custom crop. I doubt it will happen, as they invented 2/3.

NoooooH!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

That's ok. I just meant (as an example and may be not the best) that the M also has it's limitations. I would not use it as a reporter at a soccer game. But then I don't go there to take pictures so for me it is a fine tool. My point is that constantly looking for a perfect camera, without any limitations, for me will be a waste of time, because I think some limitations is a good thing. 

Edited by esp
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...