Q2: I changed my mind

[timplog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/29/2022 at 11:33 AM, RM8 said:

You'd be surprised to learn that crop is not different from tele (except maybe for pixel density) so perspective is not an issue

telephoto, especially long, lenses compress the apparent view in a way that is quite different to a crop of a 28mm apparent view, in my experience, which sometimes matters, but other times doesn't, it's all art in my opinion your choice.

in this image below, the mountain is about 30 miles away from the 200mm camera lens, but appears much closer, a crop of a 28mm of Mt Hood would be different though, and probably appear perspectively more accurate. imho🙄

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!

 

 please correct my misunderstanding if..

[Qwertynm]

Am 7.12.2022 um 01:21 schrieb jaapv:

 

28 mm

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!

 

70 mm

 

 

28 mm cropped to 70 mm AOV

Notice the difference in DOF, I should have stopped down a couple of stops.

@timplog: This post illustrates it quite well without using too many words. Yes, you are mistaken. A crop of your Q2 would yield the same contents and compression of the scene (given same perspective) albeit with less resolution and so on.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Qwertynm

[jaapv]

On 12/27/2022 at 11:24 PM, Qwertynm said:

@timplog: This post illustrates it quite well without using too many words. Yes, you are mistaken. A crop of your Q2 would yield the same contents and compression of the scene (given same perspective) albeit with less resolution and so on.

I find it amazing that people repeat this false mantra without actually testing it out themselves. A couple of prints and a pair of scissors suffice. 

[Kiwimac]

FWIW I think Q3 will be 60MP with the same lens on it (lens is very good and also very expensive to redesign etc) and maybe some other bells and whistles. Internal memory, for example. 
 

At that point, I’m not sure I’d need an M. You’d easily cover 28-100 with cropping and still get excellent files for most users. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Kiwimac

[rtai]

I sold my Q2M for the M10M and miss it despite the imperfect AF. I use the M10M for street and typically zone focus with 21mm to 28mm lenses stopped down. When the Q2M nails focus at f/1.7 it’s marvellous. I’ll probably buy another pretty soon.

Edited December 30, 2022 by rtai

[SirBlunder]

On 12/28/2022 at 7:15 PM, jaapv said:

I find it amazing that people repeat this false mantra without actually testing it out themselves. A couple of prints and a pair of scissors suffice. 

I think because it's so counterintuitive, even to advanced/experienced photographers. We've always been told that different lenses result in different "looks", some are for portraits, some are distorted, etc., so, surely, cropping in from one lens surely can't produce the exact same perspective as a very different lens. 

Given this fact (that you've patiently laid out many times on these forums...) I don't see how one can argue that a Q should be 35 (or 50) vs the 28. In what scenario is a 35 better when you can take the same shot from the same place on your 28 (with loads of resolution) and just crop in later, resulting in virtually the exact same image with slightly more flexibility re: framing etc.? 

[Qwertynm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 4 Stunden schrieb SirBlunder:

I don't see how one can argue that a Q should be 35 (or 50) vs the 28.

a 28 f/1.7 lens @ f/1.7 cropped to either 35 or 50 gives a different look (depth of field) than a 35 or 50 f/1.7. you can have the same perspective/contents in the photo but you’ll get a different look with a different lens, that’s for sure. The bokeh or out of focus blur tends to look better on longer lenses compared to shorter focal lenghts. But this comes down to the lens design. A 35 or a 50 does not necessarily have to be (subjectively) better but often times they will look more pleasing.
 

So to answer your question: if you shoot a lot of environmental portraits at f/1.7 a 35 or 50 will often times result in smoother out of focus blur and have a different look than a cropped image out of a 28 @ f/1.7. is this objectively better? No. Can it be subjectively better, of course. It comes down to one’s preferences and it’s everyones artistic freedom to shoot either a 28, 35 or a 50. It’s just a pointless discussion since there is no Q with a 35,40 or 50 (yet, fingers crossed). 

[M11 for me]

Lets take an M with a 35mm and shoot at f/1.4 and look at the background blur. Now you are certainly aware that this background blur is given by the opening of the lens (different openings in mm result in different background blurs). This inside diameter in your 35mm lens at f/1.4  (where f = focal length) is 35mm/1.4=25mm. So your hole is 25mm wide and gives you the background blur that you expect.

Now take your 28mm with f/1.7 of your Q. At f/1.7 the opening of your lens is 28mm/1.7=16.5mm. Here we see the first thing. That opening is much smaller than your M lens 35mm at f/1.4.

Now we crop the Q to what is called 35mm angle of view and same perspective (both cameras on a tripod side by side so that they see exactly the same thing). After you have croped what has hapened now to the opening of your lens? Is is unchanged and still 16.5mm. When we make the maths and calculate the focal length divided by largest lens opening then we get the largest f-stop: 35mm/16.5=2 (to be precise: 2.1). We have then an equivalent of 35mm angle of view at f/2 on the Q when croped to 35mm at max aperture.

And this is NOT the same as the 35mm f/1.4 on the M. 

That is why the croped image of the Q wide open can not look the same as on the M wide open).

Now make it a bit more complicated: Assuming that on the M you had the 35mm Summicron (f/2) instead of the Summilux (f/1.4). In that instance the croped image on your Q (croped to 35mm) would be exactly the same as on the M. Same background blur. 

Now all of this is not fully correct either because we know that 2 different lenses with same focal length on the same body will render differently. Plus a 28mm on the Q is not exactly 28mm but something a bit wider. Then the f/1.7 that we can read on the lens if the Q might not be exactly 1.7 (I remind you of the Summarit 50m f/2.4 or f/2.5: The widest opening was exactly the same on both lenses; it was just a merketing improvement). All these little differences result in different images.

 

[SirBlunder]

2 hours ago, M11 for me said:

Lets take an M with a 35mm and shoot at f/1.4 and look at the background blur. Now you are certainly aware that this background blur is given by the opening of the lens (different openings in mm result in different background blurs). This inside diameter in your 35mm lens at f/1.4  (where f = focal length) is 35mm/1.4=25mm. So your hole is 25mm wide and gives you the background blur that you expect.

Now take your 28mm with f/1.7 of your Q. At f/1.7 the opening of your lens is 28mm/1.7=16.5mm. Here we see the first thing. That opening is much smaller than your M lens 35mm at f/1.4.

Now we crop the Q to what is called 35mm angle of view and same perspective (both cameras on a tripod side by side so that they see exactly the same thing). After you have croped what has hapened now to the opening of your lens? Is is unchanged and still 16.5mm. When we make the maths and calculate the focal length divided by largest lens opening then we get the largest f-stop: 35mm/16.5=2 (to be precise: 2.1). We have then an equivalent of 35mm angle of view at f/2 on the Q when croped to 35mm at max aperture.

And this is NOT the same as the 35mm f/1.4 on the M. 

That is why the croped image of the Q wide open can not look the same as on the M wide open).

Now make it a bit more complicated: Assuming that on the M you had the 35mm Summicron (f/2) instead of the Summilux (f/1.4). In that instance the croped image on your Q (croped to 35mm) would be exactly the same as on the M. Same background blur. 

Now all of this is not fully correct either because we know that 2 different lenses with same focal length on the same body will render differently. Plus a 28mm on the Q is not exactly 28mm but something a bit wider. Then the f/1.7 that we can read on the lens if the Q might not be exactly 1.7 (I remind you of the Summarit 50m f/2.4 or f/2.5: The widest opening was exactly the same on both lenses; it was just a merketing improvement). All these little differences result in different images.

 

Fair. Thanks for the response/explanation. 

 

I'd be curious to see the sample shots you mentioned (i.e. true 35mm at f1.4 (or, better yet, the same f1.7) vs. 28mm shot at f.17 but then cropped to 35mm) and compare. 

[bobtodrick]

OMG...I've obviously had too much bourbon.

Who cares??

If someone is standing before an arresting image do you think they are wondering...'was that taken with a 35mm Summilux on an M or a 28 on a Q cropped??

Reminds me of an article from years ago...a father and son at a showing of Cartier-Bresson image...the father says to the son, 'we'll buy you a Leica and then you can take pictures just like this'.  It's not about the gear!!!

I'll regret this in the morning

[Qwertynm]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

Who cares??

These guys, probably 😅

 

[Daniel C.1975]

I meanwhile think it is kind of funny. As mentioned in the other thread, it is just math, physics and engineering. 

Even if the mathematical proof has been given several times, for sure the next person comes around the corner and is asking for some more proof in comparing pictures to really be sure. 

And why? Because they feel that there still is or should be a difference. That's tech and facts, no room for feelings. 

 

Finally there comes the comparison and than you here something like: Yes, I hear you. But I have the proof that my Summilux 35 1.4 has a different look at 1.4 than the Leica Q cropped to 35mm. Yes, of course there is! Because it's 1.4 vs. 2.1, plus the vignetting at 1.4 vs. a cropped picture where possible natural vignetting has been cropped away. Comparing apples with oranges. And yes, a open Summilux 1.4 35 definitely has something magical at f1.4 and therefore a Q or Q2 is no full substitute for such a combination. 

And finally, Lenses do render differently, so we can choose to taste. I believe at least here at a Leica Forum, that's something we all believe in - to a certain point. A Summaron 28mm 5.6  at 5.6 will show a very different rendering compared to the e.g. the 28 Elmarit 2.8 at 5.6. How lucky we are to have choices

 

 But from the pure physics point of view: A perfectly neutral 28mm f1.7 at 1.7 lens cropped to 35 will show the same picture  as a perfectly neutral 35mm lens at f2.1. There is no further magic behind it. With the same sensor you loose resolution, hence magnification potential - that's all. 

I've compared, more for the vibe and the look of the bokeh, my Q2 cropped to 35mm with the Apo-Summicron-SL 35mm on the SL2s and at short to mid distances with head/people/stuff shots. I can tell you it is really hard to tell the difference. And this while the apo-summicron is without a doubt the clearly superior lens. 

 

Sorry, if all of this sounds a bit harsh from my side.  But the crop discussion is now going on for over 20 years. For 20 years I am hearing the same wrong statements. Especially from people with a non technical background. It's like with crop sensors and the lenses around them. There are advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the user to evaluate what is important for the individual use case. And BTW, really big fun starts when you bring in medium format, because for some people their hardwired 35mm-Brain is then close before a thermal meltdown

So I am looking forward to the next 20 years

 

And yes, who cares. If the picture is good and telling, I personally give a damn about the focal length aperture or the used camera

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[M11 for me]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

If someone is standing before an arresting image do you think they are wondering...'was that taken with a 35mm Summilux on an M or a 28 on a Q cropped??

This is correct for the majority of people. I know this very well. But its not about that. Its the discussion about the differences and whst they are. Just compare 2 images. To understand in details what happens in what situation is just intersting to know for photographers who are interested.  I like to look behind things and understand.

vor 5 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

It's not about the gear!!!

I am with you. At the end you have an image that you like or you dislike. You give it 5 stars or 3 stars. You publish it or you print it. But maybe you think about the possible result BEFORE you take the picture. You consider to use f/1.7 or f/8. We can read here lots of posts where photographers claim to have the result in their heads before they shoot and they set the camera accordingly? Its about that. Before you shoot you choose an aperture. Don't you? Is it not imperatif to know about what happens when you crop? 

[Daniel C.1975]

And what is a nice discussion without pictures. Just made, very rough and not 100% accurate in framing. Du to the shorter build of the Q2. I've even might have given the Q2 the slightest disadvantage on top of being 2.1 equivalent vs. 2.0 of the app-summicron-sl   Focus is on the Olympus 35 SP text.The face of the first king is in the same focal plane. 

Still, the pictures are very, very similar. One obvious difference: The app-summicron already shows some cateye ball (right window) while the cropped Q2 is nearly perfectly round.

Even at 100% it's hard to tell the difference. The summicron is a tiny bit sharper on the King`s face. At 50% on my MacBook Pro 16" Retina, you could not tell which is the technical better picture.  

First the Q2, cropped to 35mm at 1.7. Second the apo-summicron-sl on the SL2s at f2.0. Both raw, no manipulation beside slight standard sharpening for the resizing:

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!

 

Edit: Adding another with the Q2 a bit more accurate framing. F1.7, cropped to 35mm

Edited January 13, 2023 by Daniel C.1975
Added a Third Q

[jaapv]

You were a bit closer on that last one  

[Daniel C.1975]

Tough to get it right  , but you get the idea. 

[jaapv]

Tripod?

[Qwertynm]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Daniel C.1975:

Tough to get it right

To derail the thread even further. What would be your point of reference to set up the cameras? The sensor or the Nodal point/Eintrittspupille? Something else?

[Daniel C.1975]

Oh guys 🙄  This was a quick and dirty comparison which is close enough to get the idea and to roughly proof the math in an easy optical manner.

This was never mend to be a scientific test. My  ‚Tough to get it right‘ was a very ironic call out, but,I understand irony is not for everyone - my fault.
 

Everyone who needs the very scientific bench test, is invited to go for it  

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Qwertynm]

It was a genuine question. How would one go „scientifically“ after doing that what you did (thanks by the way) what’s the point of referenxe to set up the cameras? I’m here to learn, not to troll

Edited January 13, 2023 by Qwertynm