Wish the Q2 came with a 35mm lens

[ianforber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, Steven said:

This is true, but what the person who started this discussion originally stated is NOT. 
he said that if you crop in the 28mm image, you have the equivalent of a 35image. NO!!! Because cropping doesn’t make you feet move. To get the equivalent of a 35, he would have had to step back a few steps in order to achieve the same perspective. That being said, that still wouldn’t fix the compression difference, as well as the fact that cropping increases the depth of field. I think that most people when they talk about perspective actually think about bokeh. They think that cropping into a 28mm image is going to give you a 35mm image, but that’s not true. Never. Not even if you step back enough with your feet. Sorry ! 

I think this might have hit the nail on the head - I suspect there may be parallel discussions here. For some people, cropping involves what @Steven says: they simply crop out the bits of a 28mm image to produce one they like more. For some, cropping involves using the frame lines in the EVF to position themselves where they would have stood had a different lens been fitted, and then crop out the deliberate excess in post. I do both, although it is much harder to do with the 50mm or 75mm framelines. Obviously, the two approaches will give you different perspectives. 

[Advertisement]

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

[sfphoto]

I agree. I also mostly crop in post. But sometimes it helps to see the frame. It would be nice if there was a way to zoom in the viewfinder. The range-finder-look of the 35mm frame is nice, but the 50mm frame gets pretty small. It would be cool to automatically zoom to the 35mm field of view on the full screen, when you select the 50mm frame and zooming to the 50mm field of view when selecting the 75mm frame. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PhotoCruiser said:

I believe that most of us Q/Q2 users use the camera for what she was designed for, a wide-angle camera.
But the excellent optical quality and the high pixels gives us the possibility to realize also substantial crops, and that is a great feature.

I have to admit that i crop almost all photos as it's my workflow to download the photos to my computer and view them on my 27 or 32 inch monitor.
It was the workflow, in earlier years blowing them up and cropping them in the darkroom and now it's cleaner and less stinky to do that on the computer.
I think except stillife in a studio some cropping or leveling is often necessary and i see nothing bad in doing that, it was always a part of photography.

Chris

When i said "cropping" i meant i personally believe the Q should be used as a 28mm camera and not as some kind of super zoom.

If you really like a 28mm lens the Q is in theory a great option but if you dislike that focal length it makes no sense at all to buy it in my view.

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb steve 1959:

If you really like a 28mm lens the Q is in theory a great option but if you dislike that focal length it makes no sense at all to buy it in my view.

Please explain me what is the big difference between a 28mm and a 35mm lens, except that the 28mm capture more field of view?

Chris

[jaapv]

That is completely wrong.  The perspective of a  photograph is only determined by the distance between the camera and the subject. In no way by the focal length.

The only thing a wideangle lens does is to allow you to move in closer.

As to DOF, it is more complicated, but similar  applies:

https://completedigitalphotography.com/2018/08/focal-length-and-depth-of-field/

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

 

[jaapv]

No. If you take it at the same distance your feet wouldn't move. Nor the subject's chair. The only thing that. would happen is that your framing would be a different size

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the focal length, only with the change in distance thus the perspective.

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, Steven said:

In that case yes you would get the same perspective as a 35 by cropping into the 28. 
The only impact would be on the depth of field which would be less shallow than the 35 after cropping on the 28thThe only impact would be on the depth of field which would be less shallow than the 35 after cropping on the 28

And the impact on DOF would be due to the "cropping" of the sensor size, thus changing the magnification throughout the imaging chain, not by the focal length. 

[PhotoCruiser]

'Well this is the 28/35mm tread so i guess that we are still in the contex and Steven,  you are free to ask whatever you want.
Sometimes it s also useful to open a new tread if the question may get lost between other treads, that is what i would do.

I know now what i was already knowing, f.e. that 28mm is not a portrait lens and that it may distort depending of distance because of being a wide angle.

Maybe someone here who has a Leica with interchangable lenses take two photos same distance one with 28mm and one with 35mm.
As i am not really sure about that so i ask someone who has either e zoom lens (likely) or both a 28mm and a 35mm lens (unlikely) on a Leica.
I could do that with my D800 and the 24-70mm, but it's not a Leica so to avoiud further discussions it would e better if a Leica is used.

My point is that the distortion or any other quality loss between 28mm and 35mm is barely noticable?
If the distortion is noticable and necessary for ones use he makes of, i understand the discussion about a Q2 with 35mm,
but if the distortion (or any other quality loss) is barely noticable then i have some problems to understand where the problem is.

Chris

[sfphoto]

2 hours ago, Steven said:

If you disagree with that, then let me claim that my 35 lux on my M10R is also a 90mm. Except it is NOT !!!!!!!!

They are. Try it. Your 35/1.4 and a 90/3.6 are identical in perspective, depth of field, “compression”, etc. Just that the 35mm shows more stuff around the frame, that you simply crop away...

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Steven:

If you don’t care about losing the shallow depth of field look, you can buy the q2 and safely use it as a 35mm lens. It just won’t be a 1.7 lens. 

So please show us the difference to see how big it is, matematical numbers and human eye perception are two different shoes

Chris

[sfphoto]

15 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:My point is that the distortion or any other quality loss between 28mm and 35mm is barely noticable?

If the distortion is noticable and necessary for ones use he makes of, i understand the discussion about a Q2 with 35mm,
but if the distortion (or any other quality loss) is barely noticable then i have some problems to understand where the problem is.

Good idea. Someone should try it. 
 

Not sure what you mean by “distortion”. The 28 on the Q2 is pretty well corrected. In any case, any distortions or chromatic aberrations will only get worse towards the edges. I would therefore think that you get a potentially better image if you crop a 28mm image to 35mm, as you get rid of the potentially less sharp and distorted edges.

(I am not talking about resolution just distortions)

[Simone_DF]

IMHO it makes more sense to have a Q with a 50mm Lux (Q5?) than a Q2 Monochrom

[Daedalus2000]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Unfortunately, I sold my Q2 (with a very very heart) two days ago, so I cannot make that test for you anymore. But if you want to see what a 35mm crop from the Q vs a real 35mm would like side by side, all you need is a 35mm lens, preferably a Summilux (set a 1,7) but even a Summicron at F2 would show a bit of a difference. After that, take a tripod, take twice the same shot, one time at the widest aperture, and a second time at an aperture of around 2.8 (I'm sure someone here can tell us precisely what the equivalent aperture of the 35 crop is). You will see the difference in the image. 

If you are shooting a landscape, or far away from your subject (without any foreground object in your composition), the difference in DOF should be minimal but still noticeable.

If you are shooting a portrait, the difference will me massive. 

I do follow your posts with interest but your inability to accept when you are wrong is frustrating. By the way the Leica Q lens is not 28mm, it is around 25mm which is then adjusted in software and cropped, so what you think is a 28mm lens is actually a cropped 25 or so.

Maybe you are confusing optical distortion with perspective distortion....

[Simone_DF]

Sure of course it will sell well, but following the reasonings in this thread, you could just convert to b/w in post and not lose much, the same as you crop from 28 to 35 😉

[Daedalus2000]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

I am indeed referring to optical distortion caused by a wider lens if you tried to frame the shot the same as a 35mm which would require you to get closer to your subject with a 28 and there for create some distortion (fish eye type, if that makes it clearer, whatever you want to call them). 
I still believe that I am right. I’m just maybe no expressing myself well enough or you’re not understanding me well enough. 
language barrier. 
thanks for following my posts though 🙏🏼 

Optical distortion is a property of the lens (specific design etc), perspective distortion is caused by the distance to the subject, and what you describe depends on distance because as you say you need to move closer to the subject. 

Here it explains it well   https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion#:~:text=While optical distortion is caused,subject within the image frame.

Anyway, I will move on from this and continue to enjoy your posts

[Daedalus2000]

7 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Sure of course it will sell well, but following the reasonings in this thread, you could just convert to b/w in post and not lose much, the same as you crop from 28 to 35 😉

Some people concluded that (but not for high iso performance and DR) :

https://youtu.be/IS7hb7BYDoo?t=550

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Daedalus2000

[Guest Nowhereman]

Steven - So, you're interested in a 28 lens for your M10-R. If I understood correctly from another thread, you're were leaning toward the Summilux 28. Have you considered the Summaron 1:5.6/28 at all? For an M9, I would never have considered this lens but, for an M10 with much better high-ISO capability, I like the Summaron.  (I posted a picture using that lens in another thread.) 

I have never been interested in the Summilux 28, although I was interested in the Summilux 21 or, more likely, the the Voigtlander 1.4/21. But, in the end, the size and weight of these lenses made me stick with my Elmarit 21 ASPH.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Guest Nowhereman]

^ Not a good state of mind, in which to buy a lens...

[Simone_DF]

I have the Sony 24mm G. Terrific lens, sharp wide open corner to corner, definitely one of the top 5 Sony lenses and on par with the Leica 24 Lux, but it’s also big and bulky, you cannot really compare it to a Q.