Jump to content

Your thoughts of the Q experience coming from a digital M...


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder where the time wasting of a raw workflow should come from? Whether you open a DNG or a JPG in Lightroom, the workflow is exactly the same.

 

I don't use lightroom, I use photoshop. I'm producing sets of images, so I create an action which does what I need to all the images, and apply it to them all. That way, I only need to do minimal work on individual images.

If I open a dng file, it does so in Camera Raw, and the functionality of that is much less than photoshop - it has none of my filters or standard actions. Therefore I end up doing the work in two stages - synching the set & creating jpgs in camera raw (which takes a very long time), and then a photoshop action. The whole process takes about 3 times as long.

 

Anyway, that's not the real point!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I have a 28 Summicron Asph as well, but rarely use it.  Will take some shots and see if can repeat this attribute on the M.  Like others, wish the Q was 35mm or 50mm lens. 

 

 

It would be interesting to compare shots between the Q and the 28 Summicron which is about the only lens I don't have for my M9.

 

Leica lens users know that their lenses are designed to perform well when at maximum aperture, so try the lenses at f/2.  

I think the problem with Geoffrey's example images is that he closed the lens down to f/8 (maybe intentionally), and has ended up with such a great depth of field that there is no subject separation or  out of focus background.    

It's always worthwhile to refer to depth of field tables (Online or downloaded) , to remind ourselves of the optical features of a 28mm lens.   

 

He also appears to be using a high ISO (800) which didn't seem to be necessary.   At f/1.7, the Q does deliver the dimensional image character that some seem to think is missing. However, I suspect that it's simply a case of incorrect choice of camera settings.    The Q allows very high shutter speeds so that when the lens is wide open and the ISO is low, f/1.7 is usable and creatively effective.   Initially I purchased an ND filter, but now I realise I won't need it for ordinary street scenes.  

 

Here's an example from my Q using wide open aperture.  Nice rendering IMHO! - despite the huge reduction in file size for forum posting.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by lucerne
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q allows very high shutter speeds so that when the lens is wide open and the ISO is low, f/1.7 is usable.   Initially I purchased an ND filter, but now I realise I won't need it for ordinary street scenes.  

 

When it comes to street, often I will put it on 1/2000th shutter speed and auto ISO/aperture - unless super bright it'll usually stick to f1.7.

 

I'm usually on the move, so just to avoid any rolling shutter issue.

 

Auto shutter speed if I'm making a point of standing still :D

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

Dan

 

That's good advice.     The reality is that there are so many combinations on this body that give great results.  I was always wary of allowing the camera to auto-select anything.  However, with almost noiseless files, and sharpness wide-open, it's a safer procedure on the Q.  I'll give your strategy a go.

 

Can you explain the "rolling shutter issue" please?

Thanks.

Edited by lucerne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan

 

That's good advice.     The reality is that there are so many combinations on this body that give great results.  I was always wary of allowing the camera to auto-select anything.  However, with almost noiseless files, and sharpness wide-open, it's a safer procedure on the Q.  I'll give your strategy a go.

 

Can you explain the "rolling shutter issue" please?

Thanks.

 

Google it for a technical explanation, but (with the Q) over 1/2000th shutter speed you no longer use the leaf shutter but electronic shutter which is when it can occur.

 

Objects which move across the frame quickly will distort, they will lean. You don't need to be taking a photo of a sports car for this to happen. If I shot someone walking past in close proximity it could happen, particularly if I'm moving as well.

 

see here for examples, including extreme ones with propellers. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolling+shutter&rlz=1C1ASUM_enGB497GB497&espv=2&biw=1214&bih=876&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI-7mMgcn5xwIVhjYaCh3UGQ-I#tbm=isch&q=rolling+shutter+effect

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

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would be interesting to compare shots between the Q and the 28 Summicron which is about the only lens I don't have for my M9.

 

Leica lens users know that their lenses are designed to perform well when at maximum aperture, so try the lenses at f/2.  

I think the problem with Geoffrey's example images is that he closed the lens down to f/8 (maybe intentionally), and has ended up with such a great depth of field that there is no subject separation or  out of focus background.    

It's always worthwhile to refer to depth of field tables (Online or downloaded) , to remind ourselves of the optical features of a 28mm lens.   

 

He also appears to be using a high ISO (800) which didn't seem to be necessary.   At f/1.7, the Q does deliver the dimensional image character that some seem to think is missing. However, I suspect that it's simply a case of incorrect choice of camera settings.    The Q allows very high shutter speeds so that when the lens is wide open and the ISO is low, f/1.7 is usable and creatively effective.   Initially I purchased an ND filter, but now I realise I won't need it for ordinary street scenes.  

 

Here's an example from my Q using wide open aperture.  Nice rendering IMHO! - despite the huge reduction in file size for forum posting.

Nice shot and nice car!!  The wheel on the wrong side though(kidding!).  I see now, more a matter of setting to get that feeling of depth.  Will do some tests with the 28.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am shooting with Leica M both privately and professionally for over 15 years, starting with the M6ttl, then M8, M8.2, two M9, up to now M(240). When announced, the Q left me totally cold, but my dealer handed me his first unit and I didn't let it go since. now I am really considering selling my M. I picked up my M after a few weeks an d few ten thousands exposures with the Q and it felt like such an old camera:

 

heavy, slow, too many focus misses when working fast, 0.7m close focus limit, hickups once in a while, no real working tethering, tiny previews for DNG, the list goes on.... I gave up on using the M for my professional work a few years ago.

 

There are rumors of a Q with non fixed lenses, that will probably tip the boat. It was great while it lastet....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon, It's all a matter of taste, I think. Certainly Leica lenses are designed to perform well wide open, but they are sharpest at 5.6, especially in the corners. The best car interiors are in Lee Friedlander's America by Car, all shot with a SWC Hasselblad, and fill-in flash, where the interior and outside are balanced and in focus. An incredible virtuoso series of photographs which I am writing an article on right now. Never took to the shallow depth of field look, but as I say, it's all a matter of taste. Another thing -- the Q at 800 has lovely grain. Just right.

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=america+by+car+lee+friedlander&biw=1726&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIm_mFm_D5xwIViA2SCh1PqAC-

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

Geoffrey.

i take all the points you make. Thanks for the heads up on Friedlander.  I'm always open to discovering predictable techniques to achieve alternative photographic styles.  It is easy to critique colour images when the photographers objective isn't clearly understood, so I apologise for any misunderstanding.  What I thought  the original post was referring to was the seemingly uncontrolled and large in-focus zone.which didn't seem to work well for the overall image.  In black and white imagery, the in- focus zone isn't the primary consideration and the composition and tonal range seems to be more important.  Hence your specific ISO setting.

 

I'd be pleased if I was producer of the Friedlander B&W images.    As a result of this debate, I'll be experimenting.  

Edited by lucerne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon, It's all a matter of taste, I think. Certainly Leica lenses are designed to perform well wide open, but they are sharpest at 5.6, especially in the corners. The best car interiors are in Lee Friedlander's America by Car, all shot with a SWC Hasselblad, and fill-in flash, where the interior and outside are balanced and in focus. An incredible virtuoso series of photographs which I am writing an article on right now. Never took to the shallow depth of field look, but as I say, it's all a matter of taste. Another thing -- the Q at 800 has lovely grain. Just right.

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=america+by+car+lee+friedlander&biw=1726&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIm_mFm_D5xwIViA2SCh1PqAC-

Thanks, Geoffrey. And again the Leica Forum costs me money. What a book! 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...