Creative Use of Depth of Field - Leica Q vs CL w/ 23mm?

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, 

Deciding between Q and CL with 23mm to give a small set up walk around set for multipurpose (people, street, travel a bit of architecture and nature) with people still being a priority.

Would you agree the Q offers more creative possibilities in terms of  Depth of Field (DOF) image composition and therefore can create a different  style and aesthetics compared to a CL with 23mm?

I am aware that other CL Lenses with 1.4 etc might be similar, but they would be bigger and the lens in relation to the body would add more weight on the lens side. 

 

Thanks for your comments.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Rokkor
Change in headline

[jaapv]

I don’t agree. Whilst I have no opinion on any difference in Bokeh In this particular case, the only thing that differs of necessity is the DOF. .Lens speed has little to do with Bokeh. For instance a version 4 Summilcron 35 has much nicer Bokeh than a Summilux 35 asph FLE.   

[Boojay]

Seems that all the subjects within your brackets cover an awful lot of ground.  To me the CL does that better and would be my number 1 choice for travel.  I had a Q and while it is a great camera, the CL beats it purely for versatility.  If you want "Bokeh",  plenty of lens choices around if you go MF, though I don't feel the 35 1.4 TL is in any way unbalanced on the CL, though some do.

However, that's just me and if you feel that 28mm 1.7 can work for you to cover all those photographic situations then you will be delighted with a Q.

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Boojay

[Rokkor]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

I don’t agree. Whilst I have no opinion on any difference in Bokeh In this particular case, the only thing that differs of necessity is the DOF. .Lens speed has little to do with Bokeh. For instance a version 4 Summilcron 35 has much nicer Bokeh than a Summilux 35 asph FLE.   

I think you have a good point here. I just googled the differences. I meant DOF and wrote Bokeh. When I compared the Q to the CL with 23mm I think pictures do not have the same aesthetics just because with the aperture open, the background is more "blurred", which I guess is the DOF. 

If you want the same aesthetics you need a faster but then also bigger lens, most likely with around 1.4?

[Rokkor]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Boojay:

Seems to me that all subjects within your brackets cover an awful lot of ground.  To me the CL does that better and would be my number 1 choice for travel.  I had a Q and while it is a great camera, the CL beats it purely for versatility.  If you want "Bokeh",  plenty of lens choices around if you go MF, and I don't feel the 35 1.4 TL is in any way unbalanced on the CL.  

However, that's just me and if you feel that 28mm 1.7 can work for you to cover all those photographic situations then you will be delighted with a Q.

Thanks a lot for your estimation. Interesting you switched from Q to CL. That is true - it is a lot in the brackets. 😉 Portraits are still a key element. And at the same time I like being creative with just one lens withe a shallow DOF. You have a good point with the manual lenses. Maybe I need to look into this again as well. Especially since I anyway have some Minolta Rokkor lenses, that have a nice low DOF and a nice Bokeh too. Maybe I need to see if there is some kind of 23mm 1.4 option that is small. 

 

Thanks again!🙂

[Boojay]

15 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

Thanks a lot for your estimation. Interesting you switched from Q to CL. That is true - it is a lot in the brackets. 😉 Portraits are still a key element. And at the same time I like being creative with just one lens withe a shallow DOF. You have a good point with the manual lenses. Maybe I need to look into this again as well. Especially since I anyway have some Minolta Rokkor lenses, that have a nice low DOF and a nice Bokeh too. Maybe I need to see if there is some kind of 23mm 1.4 option that is small. 

 

Thanks again!🙂

You're welcome, just a comment on how the two camera's worked for me.  In fact I had the CL before the Q and did a couple of trips with both together, now that's a nice combination.

However, the Q got very little use compared to the CL and I eventually sold it (to buy something else of course)😀.

As far as portraits go I think you have to be a really good photographer to get the best out of the Q for that, Rodrigue Zahr, I think he's on here somewhere has some really beautiful examples.  I was never comfortable getting close enough and any keepers usually ended up being a pretty large crop.  

Good luck with your choice.

 

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My perspective: The Q is a fabulous full frame, easy to operate camera, which is capable of beautiful images and lovely bokeh.  If the choice was take the Q, or a CL with only the 23mm lens, I'd choose the Q (assuming 28mm is fine vs. 35mm equivalent).  It has a terrific lens on a full frame sensor and does quite well in low light. (An equivalent stand alone Leica 28mm lens will cost as much as the whole Q package). It also has a macro function and can travel with you as a simple point and shoot camera. The question is whether you want to take portraits with just a 28 mm lens.

For versatility, the CL is the obviously better choice as it can be the building block for many different lenses that you may wish to acquire. 

You have 2 very nice options.  Good luck.  Rob

[EUSe]

I own both the CL and the Q, the Q was first. The image quality coming from the Q is impeccable, but with time I got tired of the look provided by the Q wide open. As has been said above, the CL is an incredibly versatile camera, even if the (older, not the recent) Q is a tiny (!) bit better as it comes to resolution. None of the native APS-C lenses has a bad bokeh. Bokeh certainly is a matter of personal choice. I found that very often an extremely shallow depth of field ruins an image. I now rarely go beyond f/3.5. I love the creamy bokeh of the 60 mm Macro TL - but this probably is not the lens you are looking for. For me one of the virtues of the CL /TL2 is the range of lenses that can be used or adapted. For travel, the CL equipped with the 18-56 mm Vario fulfills all my needs. I have rarely  used the Q since I purchased the CL.

Edited May 26, 2020 by EUSe

[EUSe]

I should add that I love the Leica APS-C system because of the bokeh the various native and adapted lenses give me. The 35 mm FF equivalent (= 23 mm TL) is not my cup of tea though - no real wide angle lens, no portrait lens either, which does not mean that it is a bad lens. What I like about the Q is its wide angle lens, well-suited for landscape - its focal length is rather 26.5 than 28 mm FF equivalent by the way. I don‘t crop when I am using the Q.

Edited May 26, 2020 by EUSe

[Rokkor]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Boojay:

You're welcome, just a comment on how the two camera's worked for me.  In fact I had the CL before the Q and did a couple of trips with both together, now that's a nice combination.

However, the Q got very little use compared to the CL and I eventually sold it (to buy something else of course)😀.

As far as portraits go I think you have to be a really good photographer to get the best out of the Q for that, Rodrigue Zahr, I think he's on here somewhere has some really beautiful examples.  I was never comfortable getting close enough and any keepers usually ended up being a pretty large crop.  

Good luck with your choice.

 

Haha. Sure. Thanks for explaining. Interesting you did the CL-Q-CL move. Makes sense, if it does not fit. I will google Rogrigue Zahr and see what magic he does with the Q in terms of portraits. I totally see your point with the crop vs not crop decision. This is the only little doubt I have with the Q. On the other hand I also once survived a trip when I forgot my Fuji X equipment at home and shot everything with the iPhone. With some creativity it worked, too. So like always in the end it depends what you make out of the equipment you have. Nice portraits by the way on your flickr link. 

[Rokkor]

vor einer Stunde schrieb ropo54:

My perspective: The Q is a fabulous full frame, easy to operate camera, which is capable of beautiful images and lovely bokeh.  If the choice was take the Q, or a CL with only the 23mm lens, I'd choose the Q (assuming 28mm is fine vs. 35mm equivalent).  It has a terrific lens on a full frame sensor and does quite well in low light. (An equivalent stand alone Leica 28mm lens will cost as much as the whole Q package). It also has a macro function and can travel with you as a simple point and shoot camera. The question is whether you want to take portraits with just a 28 mm lens.

For versatility, the CL is the obviously better choice as it can be the building block for many different lenses that you may wish to acquire. 

You have 2 very nice options.  Good luck.  Rob

Thank you Rob. That makes sense. And that is exactly where my thoughts are currently. Just to have one thing. And the package is a bargain. Especially no, when you are lucky you can get a Q second hand for 2000 -2500 dollars. For the CL plus 23mm that would be a bit more I guess. And then the question would be - how much is that a real upgrade to the XT-1 where I have some nice lenses already (e.g. 35mm/1.4) or the X100V that is only 1.5K - brand new (also 23mm 2.0 APS-C). Maybe you would still get the "Leica Look" and colors though. 

Yes, the versatility point I can see and with the 18mm / 28mm it is tiny. Big plus. And you could still use the lenses after selling the body. If you buy a Q second hand it is a bargain but also shocking how alos Leica like any other brand loses its value when it comes to electronics and digital body. But that is understandable of course. 

[jaapv]

Another thing - there are many more aspects. Not just the DOF will determine the subject separation - there are vast differences in sharpness falloff in various lens designs, for instance. The quality of the OOF (Bokeh) areas will determine the optical impression too - and there is the question, at what size will you view the photograph?

I find it far more effective to use compositional means. For instance: You want a blurred background? Get in close to the subject and choose a background that is fer away. Use photographic "language". Make the subject contrasty and the background low-contrast. Choose a background that is simple, larger forms. Use colour contrast. Etc. In other words: get away from technology and take photographs.

Don't forget that the object is to influence the eye and the brain of the viewer. That is far more complex than just a maximum aperture.

[Rokkor]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Another thing - there are many more aspects. Not just the DOF will determine the subject separation - there are vast differences in sharpness falloff in various lens designs, for instance. The quality of the OOF (Bokeh) areas will determine the optical impression too - and there is the question, at what size will you view the photograph?

I find it far more effective to use compositional means. For instance: You want a blurred background? Get in close to the subject and choose a background that is fer away. Use photographic "language". Make the subject contrasty and the background low-contrast. Choose a background that is simple, larger forms. Use colour contrast. Etc. In other words: get away from technology and take photographs.

Don't forget that the object is to influence the eye and the brain of the viewer. That is far more complex than just a maximum aperture.

Yes, that is so true. To the extreme, this can also lead us taking very good pictures with our iPhones nowadays. If you are good in composing you can also create interesting images, especially when you do not look at them too closely. Of course not to say that there is still a difference between an iPhone camera and a real camera. Maybe it is because phones tend to produce better images, that I somehow want a camera that has a possibility to play around with something the iPhone or let`s say a good Fujifilm (e.g. X100V) cannot do. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Rokkor

[EUSe]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

... Not just the DOF will determine the subject separation - there are vast differences in sharpness falloff in various lens designs, for instance. The quality of the OOF (Bokeh) areas will determine the optical impression too ...

So true. Some lenses have something about them. I often get a real 3D look from the 60 mm TL or the adapted old Voigtlaender 75 mm f/3.5. For a blurred background, the 55-135 mm TL is a good choice, even if it‘s not the lens  I would  use on a safari (focal length still too short, not stabilized). Another factor is color. For me (but not for everbody) compared to the Q1, the CL and TL2 win as it comes to natural rendering - from DNG.

Edited May 26, 2020 by EUSe