dasjak Posted October 29, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) hey, i got my Q today and am wondering about the wideness of the lens. compared to my 28 elmarit on my M the lens on the Q seems to be more like a 24mm lens?!?! anybody noticed this before? and sorry if this has been discussed before, if at all... cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Hi dasjak, Take a look here more like 24/1.7?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mr.Q Posted October 29, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 29, 2015 I don't think it's quite as wide as a 24mm, maybe 26mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcausus Posted October 29, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 29, 2015 I think that Thorsten von Overgaard's thorough Leica Q review also notes this: http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-Q-Hemingway-digital-rangefinder-.html Just search for "Comparing size of frame", where he also mentions that the Q lens is more like a 24 or 26mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted October 30, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 30, 2015 just tried the Q against the FE28/2 on my A7s and they are basically the same FOV with the Q being ever so slightly wider Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Moutsouris Posted October 30, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 30, 2015 My 25mm voigtlander angled finder has pretty much the same field of view. So it comfortably sits on my Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasjak Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted October 30, 2015 so I compared it to the iPhone and my GR and it´s also wider than those two, but slightly only...I don´t get it...why write 28mm if it´s wider than that?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky1981 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Probably similar to the RX1 which is quoted as 35mm but is more like 32mm. I guess moving the lens and sensor closer reduces the focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodrich62 Posted November 2, 2015 Share #8 Posted November 2, 2015 I am most likely totally off base here but. I'm new to Lightroom and imported DNG and JPG to see the difference between JPG and DNG. I noticed that the field of view for the JPG's and DNG's are slightly different, especially in micros. The JPGs look more like what I composed. Could the EVF and screen be showing 28 mm, and recording the JPGs, but the DNG recording the true lens size? Unfortunately I deleted the JPGs but it would be easily reproduced. So again I am making a WAG on this but is this possible? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted November 2, 2015 Share #9 Posted November 2, 2015 I am most likely totally off base here but. I'm new to Lightroom and imported DNG and JPG to see the difference between JPG and DNG. I noticed that the field of view for the JPG's and DNG's are slightly different, especially in micros. The JPGs look more like what I composed. Could the EVF and screen be showing 28 mm, and recording the JPGs, but the DNG recording the true lens size? Unfortunately I deleted the JPGs but it would be easily reproduced. So again I am making a WAG on this but is this possible? You may be correct. One of my early images was if a bird on a light pole. In the EVF it looked as I composed it. The ooc jpg looked as I composed it--I processed the raw in a program which had not been updated(-I received my Q in early July). There was vignetteing and a much wider FOV. so it is obvious that the software does some magic to get that 28mm FOV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted November 2, 2015 Share #10 Posted November 2, 2015 If you open the DNG in Raw Therapee, a donation-only program, you will see the image as recorded in raw. RT has no idea of corrections to apply to Leica Q images, barring a .dcp file. When the camera firmware builds the JPG, it applies significant distortion and vignette corrections, and presumably the version of LR from Leica (I do not have it nor a Q) knows how to make the corrections, too. In the process of correcting distortion, the field of view presumably narrows down to 28mm from a wider actual FOV of the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jvansmit Posted November 3, 2015 Share #11 Posted November 3, 2015 my experience is that the FOV of the Q's lens is closer to my 24mm Lux than my 28mm Cron (on M246). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpopescu Posted November 3, 2015 Share #12 Posted November 3, 2015 If you open the DNG in Raw Therapee, a donation-only program, you will see the image as recorded in raw. RT has no idea of corrections to apply to Leica Q images, barring a .dcp file. When the camera firmware builds the JPG, it applies significant distortion and vignette corrections, and presumably the version of LR from Leica (I do not have it nor a Q) knows how to make the corrections, too. In the process of correcting distortion, the field of view presumably narrows down to 28mm from a wider actual FOV of the lens. Based on the samples seen on the internets (mainly a fredmiranda forum topic) one of the biggest changes between RAW and the end result is actually cropping. The lens image doesn't cover the sensor 100%, which is also indicated in the specs where you can see the difference between "effective resolution" and actual sensor size. A part of that sensor capture is simply thrown out, not "distorted" into looking fine, although of course this isn't the only thing that happens to capture data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2015 Share #13 Posted November 3, 2015 Don't forget that focal length is calculated at infinity. The closer one focuses, the longer a lens gets. Historically speaking, only few lenses have ever been exactly the nominal focal length. Even lenses within the same series vary individually. Of course the digital corrections, which result in cropping, will need a shorter lens to arrive at the correct framing in the end result Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted November 3, 2015 Share #14 Posted November 3, 2015 The accompanying screenshot compares the DNG in Raw Therapee on the left and the camera JPG as viewed in Fast Stone on the right. RT had no camera profile for the Leica Q, and no distortion or perspective corrections are applied to it. You can see the difference in vertical lines away from the center. You can see how the JPG is a crop of the raw image, which conveniently takes away some of the vignetted corner areas, too.RT says it has 6008 by 4008 pixels. The camera JPG is 6000 by 4000. I don't know whether the camera firmware upsizes after it applies corrections.The photo was taken just outside the door of the Leica store on Bush Street in San Francisco. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252321-more-like-2417/?do=findComment&comment=2920114'>More sharing options...
Peter Pan Posted November 3, 2015 Share #15 Posted November 3, 2015 In my Capture One software an image with no distortion correction have 6460 x 4101 pixels The corrected 28mm image have 6000 x 4000 pixels And a 35mm crop image have 4800 x 3200 pixels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted November 3, 2015 Share #16 Posted November 3, 2015 And here is what the Exif fields declare! Image Width : 6120Image Height : 4016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.