Wish the Q2 came with a 35mm lens

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe that at some point, the folks at Leica had to make a tough choice: would the future owners of the Q be "imprisoned" with a 28mm for the rest of their life, or with a 35mm? 

They chose the 28 for one obvious reason. If it was going to be an all rounder camera, they would follow the most popular camera in the world. The one that most photos have been taken on in the history of photography. They one that's in the pocket of over a billion people on the planet. The one that creates millions of new photos posted everywhere everyday: the iPhone. I understand it was a choice that made sense. This way, the Q would be the perfect point and shoot. Good for street, good for family, good for travel.... and with the Q2, they added the belief that you would have a 35mm in your pocket at the same time. 

But lets face it, while the Q is a good selling camera for Leica, its not a good selling camera next to the competition, and that's because most non Leica get shocked when they see the price, while you can get a sony with an AF system that puts the AF of the Q in the garbage, better video feature, and an excellent 24 G Master, that interchangeable. Pointshooters don't spend 5K in a camera. Only real photography lovers can justify spending that much. For the Leica shooter that accept the price of it, I do think that the average person shooting on Leica is at least a little photography savy, and that he has a good knowledge of the photography history. The average Leica user has a developed eye, if I may say so. I exclude here of course the rich retired man who wants to get into Leica as a hobby, the doctors, the lawyers, and the 28mm lover. But the 28mm lover is a much smaller community than the 35mm aficionados. I hope I don't have to justify myself on this. 50mm aside, 35 is the most iconic focal length that ever existed. It's the one all the great masters loved. Its the one that is the most versatile. It is the one that most master, and it is the one that is the most Leica user use. Dont believe me? Go on the LFI gallery, search by lens, and see how many photos you'll find shot with a 35 Cron compared to the 28. 

Of course, I understand that it was the easy (coward if I may say so) move to deliver the Q with a 28. This way, no one could say it wasn't wide enough for a family portrait on the beach in Cancun. And I do love the 28mm myself, its awesome. I really love the Q, I dream of it overnight since I sold it two days ago. I miss it more than I would have imagined. I might even buy it again next week, if im completely honest. 

But I could not live for the rest of my life with it and never look back..... UNLESS IT CAME WITH A 35MM SEMILUX (1.7). I would gladly sacrifice the 28mm focal length to make the 35 the main one, especially considering the fact that it would make the 50mm FL the next best one, not the third. 
I suspect many would agree with me. This thread is proof of it. 

 

[Steven]

3 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

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

Thanks for asking. I am about to start a new thread on the topic. The Q got me fascinated with the 28mm focal lenght, and now that I sold it, the fascination turned into obsession. This Sunday morning at breakfast my kids were talking to me and I wasn't answering. My wife asking me why I was absent. Because I was thinking about 28mm. 

[Advertisement]

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

[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. 

[Steven]

Just now, Simone_DF said:

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. 

You can in terms of quality. 

Besides that, sure it’s bulky, but it’s only 1.5k but it’s interchangeable. The lens it should be compared to is the future SL24 or 28. My point was just to say that for most shooters, it doesn’t make sense to spend money on Leica. For those left that do spend money on Leica, I think more prefer the 35 to the 28 focal length, and they understand it’s place in the history of photography. A great majority of the Leica shooters shoot in 35, or at least would bring that lens on the deserted island. Fact. 

[evikne]

I agree that for a fixed lens camera 35mm would be the most perfect, most classic and most versatile focal length. But the Q isn't simply a "fixed lens camera". The crop possibly is an intended, built-in feature, and while one can easily crop from 28 to 35 mm, it's not possible the other way.

So a 35mm Q could of course be (even) great(er) for 35mm and up, but it would lack 28mm, which is also an important and popular focal length.

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, evikne said:

I agree that for a fixed lens camera 35mm would be the most perfect, most classic and most versatile focal length. But the Q isn't simply a "fixed lens camera". The crop possibly is an intended, built-in feature, and while one can easily crop from 28 to 35 mm, it's not possible the other way.

So a 35mm Q could of course be (even) great(er) for 35mm and up, but it would lack 28mm, which is also an important and popular focal length.

I’d prefer to crop from 35 to 50 than 28 to 35. 
35 and 50 are the two most classic focals. 28 is a nice one but not a classic one in any mean, at least before the history of iPhone photography. 
 

btw, you’re a 35 lover if I recall ? How’s you KOB doing ?! Still in love ? 

[evikne]

36 minutes ago, Steven said:

btw, you’re a 35 lover if I recall ? How’s you KOB doing ?! Still in love ? 

I assume that KOB means "King of Bokeh"? For the second time (!) I've traded it for a 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH. One of the reasons was that I also have the 35 FLE, and I want the two lenses to be "as far from each other" as possible in terms of rendering.

And yes, I am a 35 and 50 mm shooter. So I should keep out from the Q forum anyway. 😉

[Steven]

15 minutes ago, evikne said:

I assume that KOB means "King of Bokeh"? For the second time (!) I've traded it for a 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH. One of the reasons was that I also have the 35 FLE, and I want the two lenses to be "as far from each other" as possible in terms of rendering.

And yes, I am a 35 and 50 mm shooter. So I should keep out from the Q forum anyway. 😉

Ah mate, I've been like you on the search of the perfect 35 combo for a while. I followed your previous adventure with the KOB. 

For now, my perfect combo is: 

-Summilux 35 PRE FLE, which I find to be a good middle ground between the FLE and the pre asph. It glows well, but is sharp too, without being razor sharp like the FLE. They are similar yet so different. To me the Pre has more atmosphere, or character. 

-Summicron 35 APH v6, for when I want the modern, sharp gritty look. So far, the 35 Cron is the lens that I found for my M10 that reproduces the closest the look of the 28 Semilux on the Q. Very sharp, clinical, 3D. It's nice that it's smaller than the lux too. 

-Voigtlander 35 Nokton MCII: I use this lens for when I want a tiny yet very fast package at night. Its so small, like the KOB but opens at 1.4. I think it looks very similar to the pre Asph that you own with its vintage, swirley nervous bokeh. A bit too soft in the periphery at 1.4 to consider it my main lens (like the pre asph, imo) but I love its imperfection, like the beautiful ring flare that it's famous for. 

Anyway, I drifted off topic here. Back to the Q and its lack of a real 35mm lens ! Any one has predictions on the Q3, since we know it won't be a 35mm lens? They only thing I can thing off to improve the already amazing Q2 (besides a 35 lens) is a bettor ISO performance, and autofocus that works at least as well as my iPhone, if its not too much to ask with eye detect. Oh, and if I dare to be wild, why not 10 bit video ! Cause the current codec is crap. Unusable. 

[Stephen.s1]

While we're dreaming...my wish for the perfect Q (Q3) would be a full articulating viewing screen.  The rest of the camera is perfect!

[Steven]

3 minutes ago, Stephen.s1 said:

While we're dreaming...my wish for the perfect Q (Q3) would be a full articulating viewing screen.  The rest of the camera is perfect!

How could I forget that. 

A tilt up (not fully articulating) screen would be more desirable though. We aren't vloggers. 

[Stephen.s1]

Steven, a tilt-up screen is always good for low angle shots.  But does nothing for the overhead camera hold.  (while we're wishing... <grin>)

 

[Steven]

14 minutes ago, Stephen.s1 said:

Steven, a tilt-up screen is always good for low angle shots.  But does nothing for the overhead camera hold.  (while we're wishing... <grin>)

 

Tilt up and down screen, of course. Just not a flip out fully articulating. It’s what they do on the new Sony’s and canons. I hate it. They do that so that vooggers can see themselves. But having the screen not centered behind the lens, but completely on the side, is very disorienting for me. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, PhotoCruiser said:

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

I can only speak for myself but my people pics always look distorted and obviously wide angle with a 28mm lens but look just fine with a 35mm.

Even with scenic pics i prefer 21/25 or 35mm to a 28mm.

Its probably all my fault but my point is that if you like and use 28mm lots then the Q makes great sense but otherwise its not suitable.

[Steven]

8 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

I can only speak for myself but my people pics always look distorted and obviously wide angle with a 28mm lens but look just fine with a 35mm.

Even with scenic pics i prefer 21/25 or 35mm to a 28mm.

Its probably all my fault but my point is that if you like and use 28mm lots then the Q makes great sense but otherwise its not suitable.

That's exactly the point I tried to make before. When taking portraits, people tend to want to fill the frame with a face. So with a 28 they have to get closer which creates a distorted look (optical distortion, I suppose?). If you want to get the same look as a 35, you must step back and include more of the background, which in turn will sacrifice DOF. Therefore, cropping in a 28 is not the same thing as using a 35, in practice. But it's not that important I guess. I personally like both looks. The reportage style look that you get out of a 28, and the nice cinematic look you get out of a 35. But if I had to live with one it would be the 35 not the 28. That why I cant live with the Q only. If the Q came with a 35 lens, however, like many other fixed camera lenses that have proven to be more successful than the Q, then this could put an end to the existential crisis im living through right now. 

[jaapv]

Correct,  only it is not optical distortion but a normal change in perspective . If you were to get as close with a 35 you would get the same "distortion" (but obviously tighter framing)

You can get the same effect by moving in close with your eyes.

BTW, what is "cinematic look" ??

[Steven]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Correct,  only it is not optical distortion but a normal change in perspective . If you were to get as close with a 35 you would get the same "distortion" (but obviously tighter framing)

You can get the same effect by moving in close with your eyes.

BTW, what is "cinematic look" ??

Mmmm I thought this term (which I don't like, coming from the film industry) was very popular nowadays. Thats why I used it. 

I believe the number one criteria when calling a shot cinematic is shallow DOF. But other factors come into play, such as no distortion, compressed background, character and flares, atmosphere and drama in general. A 35 is usually more "cinematic" than a 28. The longer, the more cinematic. 

Except this term is completely stupid, IMO, because some very cinematic films have been shot on fisheye lenses. Some brilliant films have been shot on all kinds of lenses, with all kinds of characters. 

The last film I produced, actually, is shot on a 25mm Cooke lens, on a tripod the entire movie. Not one move. Only 60 cuts during the whole 2 hours. 

[jaapv]

14 hours ago, Stephen.s1 said:

While we're dreaming...my wish for the perfect Q (Q3) would be a full articulating viewing screen.  The rest of the camera is perfect!

You do realize that this would add at least 2-3 mm to the thickness of the camera?

[evikne]

41 minutes ago, Steven said:

Mmmm I thought this term (which I don't like, coming from the film industry) was very popular nowadays. Thats why I used it. 

I believe the number one criteria when calling a shot cinematic is shallow DOF. But other factors come into play, such as no distortion, compressed background, character and flares, atmosphere and drama in general. A 35 is usually more "cinematic" than a 28. The longer, the more cinematic. 

Except this term is completely stupid, IMO, because some very cinematic films have been shot on fisheye lenses. Some brilliant films have been shot on all kinds of lenses, with all kinds of characters. 

The last film I produced, actually, is shot on a 25mm Cooke lens, on a tripod the entire movie. Not one move. Only 60 cuts during the whole 2 hours. 

To me, cinematic look is mostly wide angle combined with shallow DOF, as here with the 35 FLE. But as you say, it can be practically anything.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Steven]

7 minutes ago, evikne said:

To me, cinematic look is mostly wide angle combined with shallow DOF, as here with the 35 FLE. But as you say, it can be practically anything.

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!

Yep, that’s a cinematic shot. 

I suppose a cinematic shot is one that looks like a movie still. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Steven