I dreamed a QV

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

We might be talking about XV and X 113 in the FF format.

And that’s the difference. Look at the TL lenses and their equivalent on the SL and you can see what moving from APSC to FF does to size and weight. There is no free lunch.

[Advertisement]

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

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Nimar:

Current Q2 is a 

 

28mm f/1.7 - 47mp

35mm f/2.0 - 30mp

50mm f/3.0 - 15mp

75mm f/4.5 - 7mp

 

Thanks,

or as the TL-System and size has been mentioned, in APS-C terms:

18mm f/1.1 - 47mp

23mm f/1.4 - 30mp

33mm f/2.0 - 15mp

50mm f/3 - 7mp

 

And for MFT:

14mm f/0.85 - 47mp

17mm f/1.0 - 30mp

25mm f/1.5 - 15mp

38mm f/2.3 - 7mp

 

That's really not too bad from an equivalence point of view   

 

[Pelu2010]

All I want for eastern is a Q3 with 60 sins of pixel that’s what I want that’s what I cherish. 🤣 

and an update to the photo app 

so that I can brag when Sony shooters are around. 
 

Go go go 

[Viv]

On 1/25/2023 at 7:34 AM, Einst_Stein said:

Say, Tri-Elmarit or Tri-Sumicron, 28-59-90mm or 35-50-70mm, or 28-70mm. 

Dream on. I would have no interest in such a device.

My Q2 is fine as  it is.

[Einst_Stein]

11 hours ago, Le Chef said:

And that’s the difference. Look at the TL lenses and their equivalent on the SL and you can see what moving from APSC to FF does to size and weight. There is no free lunch.

Abandoning APS-C indicates technical competence , or confidence, for “cheap” lunch.

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

Thanks,

or as the TL-System and size has been mentioned, in APS-C terms:

18mm f/1.1 - 47mp

23mm f/1.4 - 30mp

33mm f/2.0 - 15mp

50mm f/3 - 7mp

 

And for MFT:

14mm f/0.85 - 47mp

17mm f/1.0 - 30mp

25mm f/1.5 - 15mp

38mm f/2.3 - 7mp

 

That's really not too bad from an equivalence point of view   

 

Do you think a 24mp 2/3” sensor the same as 24mp FF?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Pelu2010 said:

All I want for eastern is a Q3 with 60 sins of pixel that’s what I want that’s what I cherish. 🤣 

and an update to the photo app 

so that I can brag when Sony shooters are around. 
 

Go go go 

No objection. Don’t worry, if QV become reality, it will not replace Q3.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, Viv said:

Dream on. I would have no interest in such a device.

My Q2 is fine as  it is.

Don’t worry, neither QV, nor Q3 will take away your Q2.

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb Einst_Stein:

Do you think a 24mp 2/3” sensor the same as 24mp FF?

Not sure what your question implies.

But no, it's not the same, as the density would be much higher and therefore the pixel-pitch much, much smaller. 

Beside this, I was referring to APS-C and MFT. 2/3" is much smaller than even MFT and therefore, as being so far off, not relevant for the discussion. 

So I would like to ask, what answer do you expect, because I believe you do have something in mind. 

[Einst_Stein]

20 minutes ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

Not sure what your question implies.

But no, it's not the same, as the density would be much higher and therefore the pixel-pitch much, much smaller. 

Beside this, I was referring to APS-C and MFT. 2/3" is much smaller than even MFT and therefore, as being so far off, not relevant for the discussion. 

So I would like to ask, what answer do you expect, because I believe you do have something in mind. 

Your early post is full of MP numbers. It seems your tried to reach some conclusion with just the MP numbers.

I want to clarify if that is in your mind. If not, what do you tried to conclude?

[kobra]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Your early post is full of MP numbers. It seems your tried to reach some conclusion with just the MP numbers.

I want to clarify if that is in your mind. If not, what do you tried to conclude?

I think his numbers were clear and a conclusion was reached; and it is not just his conclusion, the information he shared is actually quite commonly known. 

What conclusion do you wish to reach with your question comparing 2/3" and FF sensors? Because I'm confused as to how that relates to the discussion. Can you explain further? 

Thanks!

Brad

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, kobra said:

I think his numbers were clear and a conclusion was reached; and it is not just his conclusion, the information he shared is actually quite commonly known. 

What conclusion do you wish to reach with your question comparing 2/3" and FF sensors? Because I'm confused as to how that relates to the discussion. Can you explain further? 

Thanks!

Brad

 Maybe it is clear to you who think cropping 47mp to 24mp or whatever smaller is equivalent to the scaled focal length. 
I can understand why you cannot understand my question.  
That is OK, if you see it that way. What you see is what you see. Sorry!
 

[kobra]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

 Maybe it is clear to you who think cropping 47mp to 24mp or whatever smaller is equivalent to the scaled focal length. 
I can understand why you cannot understand my question.  
That is OK, if you see it that way. What you see is what you see. Sorry!
 

First, your reply above is not what you said before, and it is not at all what I said at any time, so I think your reply has no place here. There is nothing about the cropping factors and the numbers shared that has anything remotely to do with a 2/3" sensor, and I think you know that.  

Second, you still haven't answered the repeated questions as to what you meant when you compared a cropped full frame image with a 2/3" sensor. I think you've been caught spouting nonsense and are now deflecting. 

If you want to engage in a productive discussion of the effects of digital cropping with a Q2 vs the size and weight of a "QV" fixed lens camera with a fast zoom lens, please do so. After all, that is what this thread is about. 

Brad

[Genoweffa]

Insztayn starts a silly topic..

then people politely respond that it is a silly idea

he does not like it, gets pissed off

 

go bug Leica with your idea

[kobra]

It's kind of too bad... I do believe people were trying to help the OP see that digital cropping is actually a very useful tool, and it is actually astounding in the Q2. I'm not sure if they have used a Q2, but any doubts I had about the Q2 were gone soon after I started shooting with it. I have absolutely no hesitation to take 28,35 and 50mm FoV shots, anytime anywhere. And, under right conditions even 75mm crops work. 

So, an experiment if anyone wants... I have a Q2, and an SL2 with 50 and 75 APO lenses... what lens was used in this photo, and was the image cropped?

Enjoy! 

Brad

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!

Edited January 28, 2023 by kobra

[Daniel C.1975]

@Kobra: Could be all named possibilities. Which nicely shows, especially for internet-publications, how convenient the cropping mode is. 

 

I have made a very simple test against my 35mm apo-summicron-sl on a SL2s. And my conclusion is, that without a 1:1 comparison most people would have a hard time to distinguish between the apo on a SL2s and the Q2 being cropped. Of course the Apo is superior, but this is not always clearly visible. 

 

As I am interested in an open and nice discussion, I'll pick up the argument of Ein_Stein that I have "just thrown a lot of MP into the room". Yes, I did, but not just MPs. I did so in conjunction with the equivalent focal length and aperture.

Why? First of all, the comparison has already been made in this thread within the full-frame-sensor-realm and as the APS-C and size argument came up, I've completed that comparison towards APS-C (like the TL) and MFT (like the Panasonic / Olympus MFT offering). 

What can you read out of it? Very simple:

- The equivalent focal length in each format to achieve the same field of view

- The equivalent aperture in each format to achieve a comparable depth of field

- The remaining resolution to be able to make an estimation of the magnification potential of the final picture

 

I dare say, that this is giving you a quite complete picture about the usability for the individual use-case. Not more, not less. 

 

Summed up: The crop mode is quite useful and versatile. 

 

Hope that clarifies it a bit. 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[kobra]

@Daniel C.1975 - thanks for weighing in. I am very familiar with what you posted earlier, and I like how you've added the practical application of it in this post. I think if someone is not sure of cropping and how that relates to equivalence between sensor sizes and between "real FoV" and "digitally cropped FoV", reading your posts will be very helpful. 

I would add this; neither of us is saying that cropping is identical to a longer focal length lens. But to dismiss digital cropping, especially with the resolution of the sensor and quality of the lens of the Q2, is to miss out on a lot of opportunity. Yes, you are "wasting megapixels" by cropping, but what is our goal with the image we take? To count megapixels? Or to measure the size of the megapixels? Isn't it, rather, to create images that express our vision in an attention grabbing way? And I would add in the context of this forum, to create images better than our camera phone? 

As to the image I posted; given the context one likely guessed the image was taken with the Q2 and that it was cropped. But, perhaps what is not so clear is that it was cropped all the way to 75mm. I tried to post a larger jpg but it exceeded the limits of posting, so while the above image is posted as an "internet sized" image, it stands up wonderfully for use in print as well. I have this image and a couple others from that set printed to 16x20 and they needed nothing beyond a normal print export recipe (IOW, no uprez software required). My favorite of that set might get printed even larger and I believe the quality is there to support that. Everyone who sees it immediately is drawn to it and they know it was not a phone image, but photographer friends are blown away when I tell them it was taken with a 28mm lens cropped down to a 75mm FoV. 

Here is one more detail about the image; my wife and I enjoy outdoor summer concerts and most do not allow "professional cameras", which they usually define that as a camera that has removable lenses. Unless you have a photographers pass, cameras like the SL2 and lenses would not be allowed. So, without the Q2 and using digital cropping, the image would not exist; at least not in the framing and quality that it does now. 

To me, for street and travel and a go everywhere camera, the Q2 has changed the rules - and a large part of that comes from using the excellent digital cropping. I for one am not interested in a "QV" as I don't believe physics allows for a lens to be built with multiple focal lengths that would simultaneously be the quality of the Q2 lens while still at a size that is jacket pocketable. (if one really understands what the true definitions of "focal length" and "aperture" are, then the actual math of those will demonstrate how impossible it is to create the dreamed about lens). And, if the dreamed about "QV" were to work some other kind of software magic to get around the physical limitations of optics, then are we not back to what a high end camera phone is doing? 

My dream is if a Q3 would come in 2 versions - a fixed 28mm lens as now, and a "Q3X" with a fixed 50mm lens. I would want both  

Brad

[bobtodrick]

10 minutes ago, kobra said:

@Daniel C.1975 - thanks for weighing in. I am very familiar with what you posted earlier, and I like how you've added the practical application of it in this post. I think if someone is not sure of cropping and how that relates to equivalence between sensor sizes and between "real FoV" and "digitally cropped FoV", reading your posts will be very helpful. 

I would add this; neither of us is saying that cropping is identical to a longer focal length lens. But to dismiss digital cropping, especially with the resolution of the sensor and quality of the lens of the Q2, is to miss out on a lot of opportunity. Yes, you are "wasting megapixels" by cropping, but what is our goal with the image we take? To count megapixels? Or to measure the size of the megapixels? Isn't it, rather, to create images that express our vision in an attention grabbing way? And I would add in the context of this forum, to create images better than our camera phone? 

As to the image I posted; given the context one likely guessed the image was taken with the Q2 and that it was cropped. But, perhaps what is not so clear is that it was cropped all the way to 75mm. I tried to post a larger jpg but it exceeded the limits of posting, so while the above image is posted as an "internet sized" image, it stands up wonderfully for use in print as well. I have this image and a couple others from that set printed to 16x20 and they needed nothing beyond a normal print export recipe (IOW, no uprez software required). My favorite of that set might get printed even larger and I believe the quality is there to support that. Everyone who sees it immediately is drawn to it and they know it was not a phone image, but photographer friends are blown away when I tell them it was taken with a 28mm lens cropped down to a 75mm FoV. 

Here is one more detail about the image; my wife and I enjoy outdoor summer concerts and most do not allow "professional cameras", which they usually define that as a camera that has removable lenses. Unless you have a photographers pass, cameras like the SL2 and lenses would not be allowed. So, without the Q2 and using digital cropping, the image would not exist; at least not in the framing and quality that it does now. 

To me, for street and travel and a go everywhere camera, the Q2 has changed the rules - and a large part of that comes from using the excellent digital cropping. I for one am not interested in a "QV" as I don't believe physics allows for a lens to be built with multiple focal lengths that would simultaneously be the quality of the Q2 lens while still at a size that is jacket pocketable. (if one really understands what the true definitions of "focal length" and "aperture" are, then the actual math of those will demonstrate how impossible it is to create the dreamed about lens). And, if the dreamed about "QV" were to work some other kind of software magic to get around the physical limitations of optics, then are we not back to what a high end camera phone is doing? 

My dream is if a Q3 would come in 2 versions - a fixed 28mm lens as now, and a "Q3X" with a fixed 50mm lens. I would want both  

Brad

You nailed it.

The one negative (IMO) of digital is that it has caused a lot of people who have forgotten that photography is about the image…not how many megapixels it was taken with.

True story.  I sell photo gear to pros/industry.  For many years I’ve had a copy of Capa’s ‘Falling Loyalist Soldier’ in my office.

You would not believe the comments I’ve had on it in the last fifteen years:

-Gee, why is there so much noise (grain)

-That camera had lousy autofocus

-It’s a bit blurry.

Good god…sometimes it makes me wish digital had never been invented.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[kobra]

Haha, yes it seems we are easily distracted by the latest gear and lose sight of what a good image really is. Great example! 

But, I couldn't help noticing your pun and will build on it here... I thought there were no negatives in digital photography  

 

Brad

[Nimar]

While we are dreaming, I’d not say no to a q3 with a 28 f/1.4 as it would give you a pretty classic 50 f/2 perspective. 
 

Though doubtless would add some weight.