Travel M Lens Kit

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forget the influence of any lens. Just move your feet (along with your eyes) and see how the perspective changes for the scope of your vision. All lenses just record what your eyes can already see.

[Harpomatic]

10 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Perspective, in the centre crop, the rest, no.   Too much going on. Compression, depth of field, resolution and lens characteristics. 

You do get the same field of view, but that’s pretty much it. Your APS-C observation pretty much confirms the point. 

I guess we have to agree to differ on the point. 

 

Yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree:

lens characteristics is a moot point, it’s like saying that two identical focal length lenses don’t give you the same perspective, compression, or DOF because of their optical aberration differences. Every lens will be slightly different in rendering, but the other optical properties will remain close to identical.

Compression, as jaapv said, relates to distance, same as perspective and DOF at same aperture. The focal length, at same distance, only gives you more in the periphery.

This isn’t really opinion, it’s fact. Researching it NOT on blogs but on authoritative sources on optics will confirm it.

Anyway, I’m out. Not debating this any further on my side. 

I’m off shooting! 🙂

[IkarusJohn]

Excellent idea. 

[IkarusJohn]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Don’t we all wish that we were resisting future whilst being forced to embrace it? 

Funny. 

Now, I could set up my tripod with the depth of field chart and two lenses to make the point, but I’m at the beach - no tripod, no chart, a good book to read.

For interest’s sake, if I run a depth of field calculator, for, say, a 28mm lens, at f/1.4 the depth of field at 2 metres is 320mm. Everything remaining the same, for a 75mm lens the depth of field is 60mm. 

My experience has been that cutting up a print or cropping it in post does not chande the depth of field. Now, it may be that if you print the crop at the same size as the full frame 75mm print and view it at the same viewing distance, you might convince yourself that the depth of field is the same. I don’t know, I’ve never tried and have more time for taking pictures than such a pointless exercise. For me. 

So, let’s talk about sharpness being an illusion, or a bourgeois concept. 



 

[dpitt]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Funny. 

Now, I could set up my tripod with the depth of field chart and two lenses to make the point, but I’m at the beach - no tripod, no chart, a good book to read.

For interest’s sake, if I run a depth of field calculator, for, say, a 28mm lens, at f/1.4 the depth of field at 2 metres is 320mm. Everything remaining the same, for a 75mm lens the depth of field is 60mm. 

My experience has been that cutting up a print or cropping it in post does not chande the depth of field. Now, it may be that if you print the crop at the same size as the full frame 75mm print and view it at the same viewing distance, you might convince yourself that the depth of field is the same. I don’t know, I’ve never tried and have more time for taking pictures than such a pointless exercise. For me. 

So, let’s talk about sharpness being an illusion, or a bourgeois concept. 



 

The point is that your cropped image will not look as if the DOF is 60mm, depending on the resolution of your remaining crop, it will look more like 320mm.
In other words, it will not have the DOF look like shot with a 75mm at F1.4 at 2m.

If you want to learn about cropping and DOF issues hands on, then have some fun with an iPhone or even a cropped sensor like in the Leica Digilux2.It was a wonderful camera and lens, F2.0 - F2.4 (28-90mm eq), but in reality it is a 7-22mm (4x crop factor). It was almost impossible to get some shallow DOF, at least not outside the macro domain.

So using it at 90mm F2.4 as a portrait lens more like 90mm F5.6 not at all like a 90mm F2.4.

Edited January 23, 2024 by dpitt

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

It was a wonderful camera and lens, F2.0 - F2.4 (28-90mm eq), but in reality it is a 7-22mm (4x crop factor). It was almost impossible to get some shallow DOF, at least not outside the macro domain.

Absolutely, as f-stops function per square root (1.4) 2x1.4=2.8 2.8x1.4=4 and so on. Crop factor is also square root based (comparing sensor’s sizes). Crop factor 4/1.4=2.9 meaning the DOF of the Digilux at f2 looks roughly like f5.6 on a full frame sensor. 
 

—-

Cropping is essentially zooming. You keep your perspective and only change the field of view. The shorter the focal length, the more image information on the edge enters the scene, you open up the field of view. However, the centre remains the same as you don’t move the camera‘s perspective. This can be counteracted by cropping in post to the original field of view. The image will look (somewhat) identical as it were shot on the respective focal length delivering the same field of view.

However, the DOF will be different because by cropping you used a smaller part of the sensor when cropping in camera (Leica Q) or image when cropping in post. That again goes by the square root of your sensor size/f-stop relation as described above. 

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

My experience has been that cutting up a print or cropping it in post does not chande the depth of field. Now, it may be that if you print the crop at the same size as the full frame 75mm print and view it at the same viewing distance, you might convince yourself that the depth of field is the same. I don’t know, I’ve never tried and have more time for taking pictures than such a pointless exercise. For m

DOF is controlled by magnification.  That is both by viewing distance and by print size.  If you print small, DOF is deep, if you print large and view at the same distance DOF is shallow. So, for cropping in the darkroom  vs cropping through changing lenses on the camera the same DOF changes rule. Cropping on the sensor is the same as cropping in the darkroom.

Don't forget that DOF is not a fixed property of any optical system at all, but is caused by the limit of resolution in your eyes. DOF is the zone in which your eyes are unable to resolve the lack of sharpness of an image. If you magnify the image more, it will fall within the resolution capability of your eyes.

[pgk]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

For interest’s sake, if I run a depth of field calculator, for, say, a 28mm lens, at f/1.4 the depth of field at 2 metres is 320mm. Everything remaining the same, for a 75mm lens the depth of field is 60mm.

Yes but if you print so that the 28mm image cropped area is the same size as the full 75mm image you will need to change the CofC because you are viewing a greater enlargement ..... So you are not comparing like with like.

There will be subtle differences though and under ideal 'test' conditions, if you could match the pixels by taking the 28mm photo on a higher MPixel camera than the 75mm shot so that variables are minimised, you may find a slightly different 'depth of field roll-off' and other marginal differences.

But who wants to do that? Shooting full frame primes is easier, more satisfying and most importantly, you 'see' the image when you take it. [There are exceptions, there always will be.]

Edited January 23, 2024 by pgk

[hansvons]

11 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I will continue to enjoy my primes, resisting the assurances that in camera cropping is the future!

You are right, of course. Cropping in camera will create more DOF compared to the respective focal length. The character of a lens is most notable at the edges. Cropping will, well, crop that out and tons of the soul will be gone. The uncropped version of the image will be sharper as the sensor‘s full resolution is used, similar things can be said about the lens, especially when trying to compensate for the DOF by opening the aperture.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

The point is that your cropped image will not look as if the DOF is 60mm, depending on the resolution of your remaining crop, it will look more like 320mm.
In other words, it will not have the DOF look like shot with a 75mm at F1.4 at 2m.

If you want to learn about cropping and DOF issues hands on, then have some fun with an iPhone or even a cropped sensor like in the Leica Digilux2.It was a wonderful camera and lens, F2.0 - F2.4 (28-90mm eq), but in reality it is a 7-22mm (4x crop factor). It was almost impossible to get some shallow DOF, at least not outside the macro domain.

So using it at 90mm F2.4 as a portrait lens more like 90mm F5.6 not at all like a 90mm F2.4.

The problem is that people are conflating perspective, resolution and DOF, getting into a complete muddle.  

[pgk]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

The problem is that people are conflating perspective, resolution and DOF, getting into a complete muddle.  

Indeed.

Perspective depends on the point from which the photograph was taken.

Resolution depends on lens and sensor/film, etc..

DOF depends on lots of things including, importantly but often largely ignored, how the image is to be viewed.

And these are all simplistic views with the exception of perspective which is fixed by position, when using a convetional single taking lens anyway.

There's nothing like a good photographic muddle!

[jaapv]

30 minutes ago, pgk said:

Yes but if you print so that the 28mm image cropped area is the same size as the full 75mm image you will need to change the CofC because you are viewing a greater enlargement ..... So you are not comparing like with like.

There will be subtle differences though and under ideal 'test' conditions, if you could match the pixels by taking the 28mm photo on a higher MPixel camera than the 75mm shot so that variables are minimised, you may find a slightly different 'depth of field roll-off' and other marginal differences.

But who wants to do that? Shooting full frame primes is easier, more satisfying and most importantly, you 'see' the image when you take it. [There are exceptions, there always will be.]

However, carrying a FF camera and a load of primes is a lot less easy, and for the purpose of a camera like the Q i.e. high-quality travel and daily camera, the results will be excellent. Of course, as soon as one starts using cameras for purposes outside their usage envelope, it will be harder if not impossible to get comparable results. So to mention one application: Street portraits with the Q, great, studio shallow DOF portraits, less so. Streets portraits with a studio setup, not really advisable  Etc. 

[M11 for me]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Plus, cropping to the center is exactly the same as mounting a longer lens you stay in the optical axis. 

Imagine that you have a 28mm lens and you want to take pictures as if you had a 50mm lens which Q owners like to do a lot. In that case it is clear that there is only the center left and the edges are gone anyway as if you had a native 50mm. So that discussion is just funny. Its clear that we speak only about croping as if we had that 50mm and this is only possible with croping to the center.

[pgk]

44 minutes ago, jaapv said:

However, carrying a FF camera and a load of primes is a lot less easy, and for the purpose of a camera like the Q i.e. high-quality travel and daily camera, the results will be excellent. Of course, as soon as one starts using cameras for purposes outside their usage envelope, it will be harder if not impossible to get comparable results. So to mention one application: Street portraits with the Q, great, studio shallow DOF portraits, less so. Streets portraits with a studio setup, not really advisable  Etc. 

The Q doesn't interest me personally. For travel an M and 3 (some fast) primes is absolutely fine and is what I have used for many years. I'm not so sure that I'd want to carry either an EVF and/or dSLR with either 3 fast primes or a fast zoom though due to the sheer bulk. 

[M11 for me]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb pgk:

The Q doesn't interest me personally. For travel an M and 3 (some fast) primes is absolutely fine and is what I have used for many years. I'm not so sure that I'd want to carry either an EVF and/or dSLR with either 3 fast primes or a fast zoom though due to the sheer bulk. 

I agree with you but this is not true generally. Lots of people like to go light and just with one lens. The Q3 is the solution with its 60MPix sensor. I personally prefer my M11 no doubt. But my wife ckearly loves her Q3. She loves to crop in camera plus the use of Perspective control. She brings home lots of beautiful images. Just recently we have been at the Aare river and most images in our published album come from her Q3. Many are croped to 35mm (in camera). When I look at the result I cannot see what is croped and what is not croped and with landscape images the aperture is anyway 5.6 or 8 and shallow depth of field is a no theme. I guess that the statement is true for most hobby images that we see on the Web. Most images are never printed and only looked at on a tablet (but this is nothing new).

When I look at the photographs in the Q or the M or SL image threads then I see few images that would stand out by so much that my statements would prove wrong. We see lots of images that would work perfectly well with a crop out of the Q3. The absolute majority of people (me included) are just hobby photographers and far away from being artists. I just would like to bring the discussion away from highfaluting ambitions that only few (me excluded) can bring.

Edited January 23, 2024 by M11 for me

[jaapv]

28 minutes ago, pgk said:

The Q doesn't interest me personally. For travel an M and 3 (some fast) primes is absolutely fine and is what I have used for many years. I'm not so sure that I'd want to carry either an EVF and/or dSLR with either 3 fast primes or a fast zoom though due to the sheer bulk. 

Nor me. I had found the perfect solution in the CL - for me. But sadly Leica did not take that view. 

[pgk]

36 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

I agree with you but this is not true generally. Lots of people like to go light and just with one lens. The Q3 is the solution with its 60MPix sensor.

I am sure that you are right for many. But photography is a broad church. This topic is (supposedly) about an M lens travel kit .....

[IkarusJohn]

8 hours ago, pgk said:

Yes but if you print so that the 28mm image cropped area is the same size as the full 75mm image you will need to change the CofC because you are viewing a greater enlargement ..... So you are not comparing like with like.

There will be subtle differences though and under ideal 'test' conditions, if you could match the pixels by taking the 28mm photo on a higher MPixel camera than the 75mm shot so that variables are minimised, you may find a slightly different 'depth of field roll-off' and other marginal differences.

But who wants to do that? Shooting full frame primes is easier, more satisfying and most importantly, you 'see' the image when you take it. [There are exceptions, there always will be.]

Thanks, Paul.  That’s abetter explanation than I could manage.

[otto.f]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

The problem is that people are conflating perspective, resolution and DOF, getting into a complete muddle.  

this discussion of which many aspects  have been repeated many times on the LUF is derailed indeed. it started quite simple with just 2 variables: feet and lens. then people start talking about cropping and even DOF, which is where the mud comes in.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

The problem is that people are conflating perspective, resolution and DOF, getting into a complete muddle.  

And compression. And probably rarely making prints to see any practical differences anyway. 

Jeff