Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Jared:

You feel that using a crop/digital zoom is a bad habit indicative of sloppy photography. I don’t. If you are leaving yourself with enough resolution for the intended use and you aren’t cropping simply to avoid the hard work of finding the best perspective I think it’s a useful tool. No different from the typical optical zoom.

I absolutely agree!

To crop often is bashed as sloppy photography or lazy photographers, but croping was always done it's just simpler nowadays than doing it in the stinky darkroom.
What we have now as pixels and it's nois we had as grain on films and the smoother grain/pixels are bigger we could blow up.

Not really such a big difference, at least for photographers like me who spent uncountable hours in the stinky darkroom to develop and crop analog photographies.

In studio photography under perfect conditions a perfect shot not needing any crop and editing is possible and i know professionals who can achieve that,
but for a lot of photographers studio perfection is not possible and copping and editing is part of their photographic workflow.

On the end and strictly for me, how "good" a photo is the final photo itself, not the way how was shot and edited.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I also thank you for actually taking the time to write out your responses clearly and founded.

When I called out Leica for their "marketing BS", I think I tried to indirectly call out Leica consumers more rather than the company itself for their inability to distinguish truth from a marketing ploy to sell a second version of the Q. Leica seems to have strong brand loyalty resulting in most consumers automatically assuming that whatever product they come up with is good, which is a fallacy and I have big gripes with that. I am not at all saying that Leica products are not as good as competitors', but in our example of the Q2, as an "upgrade" to the Q, it fails completely in my opinion, because it functions completely differently for its users as opposed to the Q.

I generally have no issue with cropping images, because I need to do it as well to fit whatever aspect ratio in my prints. I just have an issue with the Q2 as a product of Leica's greediness, because of the resulting use of the Q2 as a crop machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 17 Minuten schrieb nico4444:

 I just have an issue with the Q2 as a product of Leica's greediness, because of the resulting use of the Q2 as a crop machine.

What makes the Q series different than any other fixed lens camera?
The Q series is clearly advertised to have a 28mm fixed lens and every buyer should be aware what this will have is backdraws.
If someone don't like the 28mm then he can either buy a camera with a more tele lens or a interchangable lens camera.

On all fixed lens cameras the problem is mostly the same, the motiv is eitjer too near or too far and this can be corrected with walking.
If moving the point where the shutter it pressed is not possible then cropping kicks in if the motiv is too far, if the motiv is to near then well, we are shot.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:

What makes the Q series different than any other fixed lens camera?
The Q series is clearly advertised to have a 28mm fixed lens and every buyer should be aware what this will have is backdraws.
If someone don't like the 28mm then he can either buy a camera with a more tele lens or a interchangable lens camera.

On all fixed lens cameras the problem is mostly the same, the motiv is eitjer too near or too far and this can be corrected with walking.
If moving the point where the shutter it pressed is not possible then cropping kicks in if the motiv is too far, if the motiv is to near then well, we are shot.

Chris

And I am totally fine with that. The reasons why I love my Q so much, besides the amazing features it is equipped with, are its compromises that I find enjoying to work around. The Q2 is not a second and improved version of the Q, it is a different camera used in a way I do not appreciate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Interesting conversation has ensued from my original post. A long way from my original question but illuminating none-the-less.

Having owned and used Canon, Olympus, Leica, Hasselblad digital and film cameras over the years I have enjoyed a wide variety of cameras but I can say without a doubt the Q is my favourite ever camera. I no longer wish to carry large machines and multiple lenses. To wrestle with should I use this lens or that one. The greatest asset of the Q in my opinion is the spontaneity, the immediacy of the process. If I choose to crop the resultant image, so be it.

I do crop to 4000x4000 quite often as I like square compositions and I do crop when correcting geometric distortion but otherwise I rarely (if ever) use the 'digital zoom" ( I use the digital zoom for back button focus) but neither do I have any prejudice against those who do. Undoubtedly 47MP is a very real advantage to those people who do and wish to print their images to a fairly large size but that is not the case for me. The other improvements in the Q2 have some merit for me but not sufficient to make me buy one. I am really only interested in being confident that 47MP would not visibly improve my on screen images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nico4444 said:

First of all, I also thank you for actually taking the time to write out your responses clearly and founded.

When I called out Leica for their "marketing BS", I think I tried to indirectly call out Leica consumers more rather than the company itself for their inability to distinguish truth from a marketing ploy to sell a second version of the Q. Leica seems to have strong brand loyalty resulting in most consumers automatically assuming that whatever product they come up with is good, which is a fallacy and I have big gripes with that. I am not at all saying that Leica products are not as good as competitors', but in our example of the Q2, as an "upgrade" to the Q, it fails completely in my opinion, because it functions completely differently for its users as opposed to the Q.

I generally have no issue with cropping images, because I need to do it as well to fit whatever aspect ratio in my prints. I just have an issue with the Q2 as a product of Leica's greediness, because of the resulting use of the Q2 as a crop machine.

Honestly? The biggest feature for me in the “upgraded” Q2 was the better display followed by the weather sealing followed by the more robust battery followed by the menu shortcut followed by the increased megapixels. I certainly don’t see 48 megapixels as a “game changer” vs 24.  It’s nice, and makes the camera a bit more flexible, but I find it the least useful of the various improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/11/2020 at 10:57 PM, Jared said:

Honestly? The biggest feature for me in the “upgraded” Q2 was the better display followed by the weather sealing followed by the more robust battery followed by the menu shortcut followed by the increased megapixels. I certainly don’t see 48 megapixels as a “game changer” vs 24.  It’s nice, and makes the camera a bit more flexible, but I find it the least useful of the various improvements.

Then, why are you even engaging in the discussion for the higher count megapixels if in your honest opinion, it is a feature you find the least useful among the upgrades you mentioned?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2020 at 10:03 AM, nico4444 said:

Then, why are you even engaging in the discussion for the higher count megapixels if in your honest opinion, it is a feature you find the least useful among the upgrades you mentioned?
 

Least useful does not mean useless. Plus, like many photographers, I started in digital photography with three megapixel camera, then a six, then twelve (or was it sixteen?), twenty-four, fifty, and forty-eight. With each generation and each increase in megapixels the image quality improved. But, since we reached and passed twenty-four megapixels, the differences became smaller and my desire for higher pixel counts diminished.

Up to about sixteen megapixels or so I could see a difference in my prints. Maybe up to twenty-four if I was being super critical. But I don’t print beyond 16” x 20”, and my 5k monitor, even cropped to 16:9, really doesn’t benefit from images beyond 24 megapixels. So the increased megapixels now serve a new use for me: cropping/digital zoom. Particularly with a fixed focal length camera that’s a nice feature. Not as nice or as important as the better viewfinder or the weather sealing, but still nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, to sum up the discussion, which I think (and hope) has come to a conclusion, we have two main sides:

  1. Your side (47MP > 24MP): Cropping without too much of a loss in resolution, allowing the users to print large or just print enormously without cropping at all. This allows the users to carry the Q2 as their only camera for most purposes, instead of needing various focal lengths from different lenses. Also, the Q2 is equipped with additional features like IP52 rating, longer battery life, etc. which depending on the user, they can be either really big features or abysmal, but still nice to have features.
  2. My side (against Q2's 47MP): High count megapixel paired with a fixed wide angle lens makes for "sloppy" photography in which the users rely on digital cropping to suit whatever perspective they realized they wanted during post-processing, instead of actually achieving the desired composition and framing while shooting. So, I'm questioning whether the 47MP sensor is to be considered just a marginal and unnecessary addition to the Q, since most users do not print that large or even print at all.

We have shown our differing biases towards the Q and Q2 and I believe we can live with that, since they depend on personal use cases where users demand different features from their cameras and see photography their own way.

20 hours ago, analog-digital said:

It could also be that the next Q has "only" 12 MP. An unmatched advantage on the same sensor surface ......

The boomer humour is the only unmatched thing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 9 Minuten schrieb nico4444:

The boomer humour is the only unmatched thing here.

Fortunately, that's not a humor, it's a fact!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...