50mm and Q2

[Rob7P]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I want to to know how good are the 50mm crop of the Q2 because I like that kind of prospective...

A CL with the TL 35 Summilux 1.4 lens (so 50mm equivalent as is an APSC) is equal or better?

Thanks to all who can help me  

[Rob7P]

The megapixels for the Q2 (at 50mm) are 15

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Megapixel count on its own does not equate image quality. I have 10 MP prints from M8 and DMR 120 cm wide. No pixellation, quite sharp. A higher pixel count might have shown more detail, but not necessarily better or sharper detail.

So don't worry, 15 MP are ample for any reasonable use, except for very high-end professional applications. However, in that case, you would be better off using medium format.

Having  said that, the lens-sensor module  of the Q2 easily outstrips the image quality of the  majority of other systems, even at a 50 mm crop.

 

[bags27]

4 hours ago, Rob7P said:

A CL with the TL 35 Summilux 1.4 lens (so 50mm equivalent as is an APSC) is equal or better?

Not sure anyone answered this part of your question. The TL 35 Lux is a very serious lens. I suspect it's optically as good as the Q's Lux. I have a Q and a CL, but not the TL 35, and, from what I see on this site, I prefer the overall draw of the TL 35 to my camera's Lux. But you can't go wrong with either the CL or the Q2, which will certainly be fine cropped to 50 mm.

You haven't said whether you'll be using other cameras as well. That would definitely be an important consideration.

Edited December 30, 2019 by bags27

[Herr Barnack]

With regard to image quality, I suspect all current production M, Q2, SL2, S (007) and S3 lenses are on a level playing field.  Given the retail prices of these lenses, I can't imagine that some are outstanding while others are mediocre.  Those who are willing to settle for mediocre glass have several manufacturers to choose from; Leica is most decidedly not one of them.

My approach to shooting with the Q2 is to use every last one of the 47.3 megapixels the sensor offers us.  To that end, I discipline myself to fill the frame with my subject rather than stand back and make my photo - only to have to crop and needlessly shed megapixels in post-processing.

While I get it that we can't always get closer to our subjects due to physical or geographical limits, filling your frame using a 28mm lens vs. cropping to get a 50mm lens perspective requires just moving two or three steps closer to your subject.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[Guest Nowhereman]

Sure, using the full frame can be the best, but is not always possible. I have a Ricoh GR3, which 35mm and 50 mm crop modes. I was sitting at a coffee table and took a torso portrait shot of a friend sitting across from me. To make a decent composition, and not get too much of the coffee table into the frame, I had to use the 50mm crop mode. In processing the file, I saw that I could get a much better portrait by reframing somewhat. This was possible to do using an Adobe plugin for Lightroom, called DNGRecoverEdges.lrplugin, a free download. This recovers the whole 28mm EFOV image and allows you to reframe any way you like. I assume that this plugin can also be used with Q2 files. Incidentally, I was happy with the 50mm crop on the GR3.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may take a look at my post about this subject :

 

Simple answer Q2 at 50 is close to CL + TL 35. But the latter is definitely better, especially for composing your photo. 

[danielmfrank]

10 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Sure, using the full frame can be the best, but is not always possible. I have a Ricoh GR3, which 35mm and 50 mm crop modes. I was sitting at a coffee table and took a torso portrait shot of a friend sitting across from me. To make a decent composition, and not get too much of the coffee table into the frame, I had to use the 50mm crop mode. In processing the file, I saw that I could get a much better portrait by reframing somewhat. This was possible to do using an Adobe plugin for Lightroom, called DNGRecoverEdges.lrplugin, a free download. This recovers the whole 28mm EFOV image and allows you to reframe any way you like. I assume that this plugin can also be used with Q2 files. Incidentally, I was happy with the 50mm crop on the GR3.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

I think you can just go into the crop tool in Lightroom and re-crop any way you like, as long as you are shooting DNGs. Lightroom starts out with the crop you used when you shot, but the whole frame is there. You don't need a plugin for that.

JPGs are cropped in camera, and you can't recover anything outside the crop.

The only thing additional software can do for you, is recover the fairly modest amount of edge content lost to the automatic Software Distortion Correction (SDC) in Lightroom.

[danielmfrank]

One of the important differences between the TL 35 Summilux and the Q2 crop mode, is that the effective aperture of the Q2 lens at the 50mm EFOV is f/2.8. That's a two stop difference in light gathering, and a shallower depth of field than the Q2 can offer at the same subject distance. The part of the Q2 sensor you are using at the 50mm crop is actually smaller than the APS-C sensor on the CL.

I love my Q2, but I'm finding myself really wishing I had a second camera with a real 50mm (or longer) lens. If I also owned a CL and 35 Lux, I'd probably travel with both cameras.

[bags27]

5 minutes ago, danielmfrank said:

One of the important differences between the TL 35 Summilux and the Q2 crop mode, is that the effective aperture of the Q2 lens at the 50mm EFOV is f/2.8. That's a two stop difference in light gathering, and a shallower depth of field than the Q2 can offer at the same subject distance. The part of the Q2 sensor you are using at the 50mm crop is actually smaller than the APS-C sensor on the CL.

I love my Q2, but I'm finding myself really wishing I had a second camera with a real 50mm (or longer) lens. If I also owned a CL and 35 Lux, I'd probably travel with both cameras.

I do have both cameras. Well, the Q, not the Q2, and the CL. My favorite combination on hikes is the Q and the CL with the terrific 55-135. I get pretty much every photo I want that way. 

[nicci78]

4 hours ago, danielmfrank said:

One of the important differences between the TL 35 Summilux and the Q2 crop mode, is that the effective aperture of the Q2 lens at the 50mm EFOV is f/2.8. That's a two stop difference in light gathering, and a shallower depth of field than the Q2 can offer at the same subject distance. The part of the Q2 sensor you are using at the 50mm crop is actually smaller than the APS-C sensor on the CL.

I love my Q2, but I'm finding myself really wishing I had a second camera with a real 50mm (or longer) lens. If I also owned a CL and 35 Lux, I'd probably travel with both cameras.

Differences are quite thin actually : 
Q2 at 50mm is f/1.7 with a crop factor of 1.79x 

CL + TL 35mm is f/1.4 with a crop factor of 1.5x 

Only 1/2 stops of difference. But Q2 has OIS that TL 35 lacks. 
 

However equivalent depth of field is f/2.1 for TL 35 vs f/3.0 for Q2 at 50. 
It is the difference between a Summicron and an Elmarit. 
 

The most notable difference is the field of view from the same distance. Q2 at 50mm is wider. Something like a real 50mm. On the other hand TL 35mm is a bit longer like a 53mm. 


The big lost is in resolution and in high ISO : 10MP difference is huge and high ISO is way cleaner with the CL. 

 

Q2 biggest problem is high noise level over ISO 6,400. In fact Q2 at 12,800 looks worst than CL at 50,000. 
Q is better in this department. 

 

Last issue lies in composition. The 50mm frame are too small. It is less than ideal. 35mm lines are adequate. And tiny 75mm ones are a joke 

Please consider the Q2 as a 28 + 35mm with 50mm as an emergency.  Forget about 75mm 

Edited December 30, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, danielmfrank said:

One of the important differences between the TL 35 Summilux and the Q2 crop mode, is that the effective aperture of the Q2 lens at the 50mm EFOV is f/2.8. That's a two stop difference in light gathering, and a shallower depth of field than the Q2 can offer at the same subject distance. The part of the Q2 sensor you are using at the 50mm crop is actually smaller than the APS-C sensor on the CL.

I love my Q2, but I'm finding myself really wishing I had a second camera with a real 50mm (or longer) lens. If I also owned a CL and 35 Lux, I'd probably travel with both cameras.

Please, not that "light gathering" stuff again. A 1.7 lens remains a 1.7 lens, whatever crop you apply. The light per square mm will remain the same, and the exposure will remain the same. The sensor noise is the only real difference, and can be better explained by the difference in pixel count/relative pixel size. The difference in DOF is created by the difference in magnification through the system. If you print the full frame image large and crop with a pair of scissors you will get an identical result to a print to the smaller size that has been cropped on the sensor or in the computer.

[Rob7P]

11 hours ago, bags27 said:

You haven't said whether you'll be using other cameras as well. That would definitely be an important consideration.

Now I've got a T+23summicron, and I will sell it because I want more mp, a single camera and I want the take closer photos at 50mm.. I'm not a pro, I will use especially for travel so the q2 with the weather sealing is attracting me

8 hours ago, danielmfrank said:

One of the important differences between the TL 35 Summilux and the Q2 crop mode, is that the effective aperture of the Q2 lens at the 50mm EFOV is f/2.8. That's a two stop difference in light gathering, and a shallower depth of field than the Q2 can offer at the same subject distance. The part of the Q2 sensor you are using at the 50mm crop is actually smaller than the APS-C sensor on the CL.

I love my Q2, but I'm finding myself really wishing I had a second camera with a real 50mm (or longer) lens. If I also owned a CL and 35 Lux, I'd probably travel with both cameras.

very interesting the efov thank-you, do you think owning only a CL+35lux to travel is a too big compromise?

 

P.S. Thanks to all for the answers!  

[bags27]

32 minutes ago, Rob7P said:

very interesting the efov thank-you, do you think owning only a CL+35lux to travel is a too big compromise?

Far from it. But here would be my two considerations.

1. The Q2 is weather resistant, the CL is not. This isn't a factor for me, but it may be for you.

2. I like the draw of the TL 35 better than that from the Q or Q2. 

I own both the Q and CL. When I have to chose one camera body, it's the CL every time. And recently I acquired the M35 f/1.4 FLE, and it never leaves that camera. That's what I always grab.  

[M11 for me]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Please, not that "light gathering" stuff again. A 1.7 lens remains a 1.7 lens, whatever crop you apply. The light per square mm will remain the same, and the exposure will remain the same. The sensor noise is the only real difference, and can be better explained by the difference in pixel count/relative pixel size. The difference in DOF is created by the difference in magnification through the system. If you print the full frame image large and crop with a pair of scissors you will get an identical result to a print to the smaller size that has been cropped on the sensor or in the computer.

Well, why always that fight? You are right with "light per square mm will remain the same". No doubt here. But full frame has more square mm. This is a a fact too. The effect can easily be tested by taking a mft and a ff camera. You see that same dof and same noise and same brightness you get when you apply equivalent settings. There is a prerequiste though that you pls take similar sensor technologies: Not a sensor of 2005 to compare to one of 2019.

And just another thing: When you write "a 1.7 lens remains a 1.7 lens" you are right again. But you know well that the figure 1.7 to indicate the speed of a lens should correctly be written as a fraction of focal length in mm divided by 1.7 equals the biggest aperture of the lens in mm (division with mm above and mm underneeth the fraction results 1mm/1mm=1). So a larger number divided by 1.7 results in a larger aperture of the lens than a smaller number divided by 1.7. And in the case of ff you divide 50mm by 1.7 whereas with Aps-c you divide 35mm by 1.7. The result is different. So there are simple math rules to follow when talking about equivalence.

Edited December 30, 2019 by M10 for me

[jaapv]

But the lens remains the same focal length  as well.  The sensor format does not change that. That is another misconception... Everything remains the same except the magnification through the system.

[M11 for me]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

But the lens remains a 28 mm as well.  The sensor format does not change that. That is another misconception... Everything remains the same except the magnification through the system.

Well, I was of the opinion that when you crop you use less of the sensor whereas the 28mm still cover the full sensor. And we have less pixels as we use only part of the sensor.  I hope that you agree.

Edited December 30, 2019 by M10 for me

[jaapv]

Yes, and we magnify the image more - and that affects noise, resolution  (assuming the same pixel pitch) and apparent DOF. But it has nothing to do with this "lightgathering" nonsense, which, admittedly, seems to be a fad on various internet blogs.

[M11 for me]

Hm. . . now I am flabbergasted. I think that this is mainly about terms or words. And we might understand the same thing. As the sensor's pixel are "activated" by light an electric voltage is created (translated from german: elektrische Spannung). Some people call this "lightgathering". And the same with the lens: A lens with aperture f/0.95 lets in more light than f/5.6. And you can call that "lightgathering"; one gathers more than another one. I do not see the fad that you claim.

But I presume that some readers her might like to return to "50mm and Q2". And still it might help to discuss equivalence in that context. Some compare CL with 23mm vs. Q2 and 50mm crop. The relationship can be shown mathematically bringing in the crop-factor of 1.5 and convert aperture, focal length and ISO. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

The dissonance is created by suggesting that lenses change their aperture and focal length by changing the sensor format, which is nonsense.