Going from full frame to APS-C

[reynoldsyoung]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OMG....the intellectualizing is giving me a headache.  Wooferdog....it's THAT simple!  Have fun!

[stephan_w]

just saying: The CL is that what a Leica should be: A compact reportage-camera. Add some weather sealing and it will be perfect.

 

When you shoot at F8 you will not see much difference in depth of field anyway, at normal distances everything will be sharp. Wide open it might make a difference in bokeh, but from my experience this effect is diminished by focus inaccuracy in all 35 mm systems, and particularly in rangefinders.

 

See the CL as a nowadays IIIf or so, and you get the perfect Leica. I'm always surprised how good it is, compared to my SL and S

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

I'm not surprised any more: the CL is an excellent performer without need for qualification. I've made a couple thousand more exposures with it during the course of my travels and the only negative comment I have is that the EVF isn't quite as easy as an M viewfinder to see with when you're in bright sunlight.

 

But I knew that even before I bought it...

[howiebrou]

I think i sort of understand the DOF difference between the APS-C and FF. All along i thought it was just the crop factor that changed...

 

Now does that mean I will never get the DOF i like at F0.95 on my M-P 240 or 246 with my Noctilux on the CL? That might be a deal breaker for me and i was ready to get the nice silver version...

 

Thanks for any clarification!

Edited September 27, 2018 by howiebrou

[sfowler]

I think i sort of understand the DOF difference between the APS-C and FF. All along i thought it was just the crop factor that changed...

 

Now does that mean I will never get the DOF i like at F0.95 on my M-P 240 or 246 with my Noctilux on the CL? That might be a deal breaker for me and i was ready to get the nice silver version...

 

Thanks for any clarification!

 

I highly doubt you would see any difference between the crop and full frame depth of field especially when you are going to .95 on this camera. I have the 35 1.4 and here is a shot using that and showing its depth of field. Unless you are pixel peeping I can't see a difference with these new modern sensors. Plus the sensor on the CL is top notch and is equal to or better than the Q and a lot of Full Frames even an M in Dynamic Range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by sfowler

[jaapv]

 

I think i sort of understand the DOF difference between the APS-C and FF. All along i thought it was just the crop factor that changed...

 

Now does that mean I will never get the DOF i like at F0.95 on my M-P 240 or 246 with my Noctilux on the CL? That might be a deal breaker for me and i was ready to get the nice silver version...

 

Thanks for any clarification!

DOF will be a bit less shallow on APS-C. However, this is largely irrelevant, as the CHARACTER of the DOF will be exactly the same - and that is what we are looking for. Those few cm more are neither here not there. 

Besides, take one step forward and the DOF will be the same depth. And you will be framing more tightly anyway because a WYSIWYG viewfinder does not need to be shot loose like an optical one.

So, in the end, the results will be totally comparable.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At the same subject distance (3m below) you would get less DoF with the CL (0.14m) than with an M240 or M10 (0.21m) but you'd have to step backward (4m) with the CL to get the same FoV, so the resultant DoF (0.25m) would be close enough not to worry about IMHO. 

 

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!

 

 

[ramarren]

At the same subject distance (3m below) you would get less DoF with the CL (0.14m) than with an M240 or M10 (0.21m) but you'd have to step backward (4m) with the CL to get the same FoV, so the resultant DoF (0.25m) would be close enough not to worry about IMHO.

(... snip ...)

Your comparison uses the same lens, not the same angle of view. That's why the DoF is reduced with the CL. A "step backward" changes the perspective so you cannot get the same photo that way.

 

For a more sensible comparison, you should compare the M camera fitted with a 50mm lens to a CL camera fitted with a 35mm lens. That way you don't have to "step backward" to get the same subject, making the perspective different, and you'll see that the DoF is one stop greater at the same f/number lens opening with the CL. This makes it easy to get the same photo: either close the M/50 down one stop or open up the CL/35 one stop. (Note: "one stop" is an approximation for ease of use; the more precise value is around 1.3 stops.)

 

 

This ain't rocket science. I was a rocket scientist and I know.

Edited September 27, 2018 by ramarren

[lct]

We've been discussing about this several times here. I was responding howiebrou's question (#44) about the use of a Noctilux 50.

[ramarren]

We've been discussing about this several times here. I was responding howiebrou's question (#44) about the use of a Noctilux 50.

It is useful, if you're responding to a post several posts prior to the last one and other topics of the thread have intervened, that you quote something of that post in your response so that people know what the context of your statements are.

 

Of course, it is also true that a lot of the Noctilux's special look comes from the rendering at corners and edges of the frame when it's opened up ... much of which will be lost on the APS-C format entirely, never mind that the perspective will be different to cover the same subject field AND the DoF will be different due to the different distance required. So I'd recommend to howiebrou that he go to a dealer with his Noctilux 50 and his M to do some testing first so that he can determine whether he likes what he can get with the Nocti and the CL.

 

... It's a situation quite similar to what I see with the CL using the Summicron-R 90 and Summilux-R 50 lenses: they produce rather different looks with the smaller format that are only partly to do with the difference in DoF they can achieve. What I find, to my delight, is that the Summilux-R 50mm on the CL when wide open renders quite similarly to how the Summicron-R 90 does wide open on the Leica SL, and the Summicron-R 90mm brings it's rendering qualities to the equivalent 135mm lens FoV on the CL, in a way that doesn't exist in the native Leica lens lineup in any other combination of lens and body.

Edited September 27, 2018 by ramarren

[lct]

The "several" posts you are referring to were all responding howiebrou's but yours... 

Edited September 27, 2018 by lct

[ramarren]

Sorry, I didn't notice.

Some reference to the context remains of value. Which of the several intervening posts were you responding to?

[lct]

I was simply responding howiebrou's question by taking examples with 50/1 lenses. Nothing less, nothing more.

[jaapv]

It is useful, if you're responding to a post several posts prior to the last one and other topics of the thread have intervened, that you quote something of that post in your response so that people know what the context of your statements are.

 

Of course, it is also true that a lot of the Noctilux's special look comes from the rendering at corners and edges of the frame when it's opened up ... much of which will be lost on the APS-C format entirely, never mind that the perspective will be different to cover the same subject field AND the DoF will be different due to the different distance required. So I'd recommend to howiebrou that he go to a dealer with his Noctilux 50 and his M to do some testing first so that he can determine whether he likes what he can get with the Nocti and the CL.

 

... It's a situation quite similar to what I see with the CL using the Summicron-R 90 and Summilux-R 50 lenses: they produce rather different looks with the smaller format that are only partly to do with the difference in DoF they can achieve. What I find, to my delight, is that the Summilux-R 50mm on the CL when wide open renders quite similarly to how the Summicron-R 90 does wide open on the Leica SL, and the Summicron-R 90mm brings it's rendering qualities to the equivalent 135mm lens FoV on the CL, in a way that doesn't exist in the native Leica lens lineup in any other combination of lens and body.

I don't agree that rendering is significantly influenced by DOF. That would mean that a lens would render differently when the subject is at 3 meters as opposed to 5 meters. Which not.

[gyoung]

To give the whole equivalence picture: with crop 1.5 (APS-C) . . .

 

To make it easier to calculate, lets take MicroFourThirds (M4T) with Crop 2: Panasonic / Olympus / Leica cameras

 

- 35mm lens on FF equals 35/2 = 18mm on M4T

- Aperture on FF of e.g. f/4 equals 4/2 = f/2 on M4T

- ISO on FF of 800 equals 800/2square = 800/4 = 200 on M4T

 

This given the following settings result in the

same field of view

same depth of field

same noise level

same brightness

of 2 pictures taken either with FF or with M4T

 

FF: 35mm focal length lens

FF: f/4 aperture

FF: ISO 800

 

M4T: 18mm focal length lens

M4T: f/2 aperture

M4T: ISO 200

 

It has to be added that plus/minus the same sensor technology has to apply

While dof and angle of view will change because of the magnification and focal length changes, as far as exp6isure is concerned f/4 is f/4 and is not one wit affected by the crop factor, unless you use a focal reducer to concentrate the image.

When I use my lightmeter to set an M3 or a Hasselblad it doesnt make any difference if the 50mm lens is covering 35mm or 6x6.

 

Gerry

Edited September 27, 2018 by gyoung

[jaapv]

+1, Gerry. A common misconception worth debunking.

[ramarren]

I don't agree that rendering is significantly influenced by DOF. That would mean that a lens would render differently when the subject is at 3 meters as opposed to 5 meters. Which not.

We'll have to disagree on this, jaapv. The rendering of a lens varies dependent upon both focus distance and aperture. Changes in DoF are secondary to the aperture and distance setting, but if you're talking about the gestalt of a lens' performance, yes: the DoF will significantly influence lens rendering...

 

I can provide examples when I get home to do some examples for you, if my interest survives the train ride across the USA...

[howiebrou]

I appreciate all the comments folks. Seems to me the best thing is to try and find a Leica dealer who can let me have a play with the M adapter on the CL and compare them directly with my M. I certainly hope that the rendering and result is on par with what I am used to. The CL has been in my sight for a while and I do find the EVF on my M a pain the butt!

 

Thanks

[jaapv]

We'll have to disagree on this, jaapv. The rendering of a lens varies dependent upon both focus distance and aperture. Changes in DoF are secondary to the aperture and distance setting, but if you're talking about the gestalt of a lens' performance, yes: the DoF will significantly influence lens rendering...

 

I can provide examples when I get home to do some examples for you, if my interest survives the train ride across the USA...

My comparison is the Summilux 24 on both M and CL. I can pick out the typical fingerprint of this lens on both cameras. If anything, the lens renders better despite the DOF loss, as the camera hits the sweet spot.

 

To the OP, you don't even have to rent a CL to do your test. Just pick out a few of your favourite "rendering" images and crop them down to APS-C size. You will have the evidence right on your screen. - before this is mentioned - when viewing the full image at screen resolution the sensor resolution is irrelevant.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

I appreciate all the comments folks. Seems to me the best thing is to try and find a Leica dealer who can let me have a play with the M adapter on the CL and compare them directly with my M. I certainly hope that the rendering and result is on par with what I am used to. The CL has been in my sight for a while and I do find the EVF on my M a pain the butt!

Thanks

Glad to help.

 

The Leica Store in San Francisco allowed me to use a CL body and do an extensive amount of testing with it and the T60mm lens a few days before I bought the camera. I did comparisons against the R60mm Macro lens and tested others of my lenses as well, swapping lenses and adapters on and off the body and saving the results to my own card so I could process them at home and evaluate at leisure.

 

In testing and use since, comparing what lenses I have on both the M-D and CL, I am very happy that the CL images with all my lenses virtually identically to how the M-D 262 does, presuming I crop the FoV from the M-D exposures down to the APS-C dimensions. And that's where some of the 'personality' of rather extreme lenses like the Noctilux might differ from what you would prefer.

 

I didn't find this to be the case for my lenses and my desires: I am happy with the lens rendering for the cropped FoV. But it's a question mark that only you can answer for by actually looking at what the camera and lens combo will net you.