disproportionate look when using 35 Summicron Asph.

[Scott Root]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having received my M8 a few days ago I began using my 35 Summicron Asph for portrature and candid photography for the first time ever as I used my 50 Summicron for said purposes with my M6 in the past. Something seems off as items in the foreground such as an arm look disproportionate or larger than normal. Is this my immagination?

[ho_co]

Scott--

It's not your imagination! I can't be sure, but from what you're describing, I think what you're seeing is a difference in perspective because you have moved closer to the subject.

 

For a given distance, all lenses render the subject the same way, though different focal lengths will see different amounts of the image.

 

In other words: Shoot a portrait with a 50mm, then from the same distance with a 35mm.

 

Now blow up the image from the 50 to the finished size you want; then crop the 35 image to the same f.o.v. and blow it up to the same size, and the two will have the same perspective.

 

On the other hand: Shoot a portrait with a 50mm, then use a 35mm and move closer to get the same field of view. Comparing these two images will show you the distortions you are seeing.

 

I hope that helps.

 

--HC

[Scott Root]

Perspective wise, will a picture taken on my M6 and 50 mm lens look the same as on my M8 taken with a 35mm lens? The field of view of the 35 mm on the M8 is between 46 and 47 mm, which is close to the 50 mm lens, so taking the two pictures would have the person taking the picture close to the same distance from the subject. Or, would the two pictures render the foreground differently?

[jaapv]

As Howard pointed out: as long as the camera-subject remains unaltered the perspective does not change, just the field of view. As soon as you shorten or lengthen the subject distance the perspective starts to change: move away and the result is more "Tele" move closer up and the result is more "wideangle". In practice, possibly due to the loose framelines, possibly to the ability to chimp, photographers seem to close up a bit more with the M8 relative to the field of view than they would with a film M. This has the happy consequence that lenses tend to behave more like their full-frame equivalent character than one would expect, given the smaller sensor size of the M8.

[ho_co]

Scott--

As Jaap said, perspective and field of view are two different things.

 

You are correct in all your numeric assumptions. Field of view of a 35mm on the M8 is close to the field of a 50mm on the M6. (Actually, so-called 50's from Leica have in the past been closer to 52 mm, so they're further from the calculated 46.7 mm than you may think.)

 

But as Jaap said, you'll have a tendency to move closer to the subject with the 35mm.

 

Try making two shots on the M8, first with the 50, then with the 35, both from the same distance. Both images will look the same, except that you'll see more with the 35. But then reframe with the 35, moving closer to fill the frame the way you want the portrait to look. This third image will show the exaggerated perspective that you're experiencing, simply because you moved closer.

 

Or try picking up your film M with the 50. Frame the shot the way you want it. Now put down the film camera and pick up the M8 with the 35, still at the same distance. You'll see that the M8 with 35 seems to frame more loosely than the previous M, and you'll be tempted to move closer. If you do move closer, you'll get the perspective exaggeration you asked about. If you stay where you are, you'll get exactly the same rendition from the 35 on the M8 that you got from the 50 on the M6, except with a somewhat wider field of view.

 

The M8's frames show less of the subject than those of the earlier cameras, inviting you to move closer. The only way to get used to what's actually in the frame is practice.

 

You'll quickly get the hang of it when you try it.

 

(Or you may decide to continue to use the 50, but move back a bit.)

 

--HC

[Scott Root]

Thank you for your clear explanation and now it makes sense to me--you are right that I am naturally moving closer to the subjects.

 

With gratitude,

 

Scott

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap and Howard covered this nicely, but I might toss in a couple of other comments.

 

As Ho-Co said, Leica 50s are actually a bit longer than 50mm - Mine, according to the little correction numbers, is actually a 52.2mm lens. So a 35mm lens cropped by the M8 sensor is actually a wider lens than a "50" on film by a factor of 12%. And while both 52 and 46mm lenses fall into the "normal" category, I know from using a 45mm Planar-G on a Contax that it gives a noticeably different look from a 50.

 

Add to that the fact that film images are usually cropped a bit by negative carriers, printing machines, or slide mounts, (unless one prints black-border full frame) whereas one sees and can use the full digital image right ot the edges. This adds another 2-3% to the apparent difference between a 35 on the M8 and a "50" on a film body.

 

A 12-15% difference in framing or perspective or subject distance, or however one wants to quantify it, is the difference between a 24/25 lens and a 28mm - and I think we would all expect those focal lengths to be noticeably "different".

 

Finally, a 35mm cropped by the M8 will have a bit more depth of field for a given aperture and framing than a 50 uncropped (Let's NOT go through the whole calculation again, though!!) And. psychologically, that extra DoF can make the image seem wider - I used to shoot a 50mm Elmar @ f/22 and the results "felt" like they were done with a 35, just from the extensive DoF.

 

For those last two reasons, my 21, which should be an effective "28mm" on the M8, actually behaves more like a 25mm. More DoF and a bit wider final field of view than I get from a real 28 on film once it has been scanned.