why Q~Q3 are 28mm, not 35 or 24?

[Qwertynm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

TRY IT!! and put the prejudice aside.

I don‘t think this is about prejudice. There certainly are downsides to shooting with smaller sensors or in cropmode, same effect really. Some people want a 50 f/1.7 and this you can’t simulate with a Q3 - no matter how many MPs you have. Other downside are the croplines. It’s not really feasible to shoot with the 50mm croplines long term if a 50mm is what you‘d want in a Q. You’re right that you get the same FoV cropping and with a real 50mm lens - no one disputes that. But there are differences that can’t be discussed away. Some prefer the 28, some would like a Q40/50. let’s see if Leica makes it happen. 

[M11 for me]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Qwertynm:

Some people want a 50 f/1.7 and this you can’t simulate with

That is fully right. But as a Q3 shooter I do not mind that. I do landscape or architecture. No need for shallow DoF. But there are situations where DoF plays a role. Then its not for the Q3.

On the other hand I have lots of images with beautiful shallow dof that are taken with the Q3. So it works as well. Not to the same extend, but it works.

Edited December 27, 2023 by M11 for me

[thegobi]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Why do you think that Leica made the  Q3 60 MP.? It is the only camera where these high pixel counts make any photographical sense. This example demonstrates  the principle, not the Q. How could I have taken a 70 mm lens shot with one ? 

The point is that some photographers claim that there is a vast difference between a  28 mm shot cropped to a longer focal length field of view and a shot with a native focal length. Which, as long as you don't change the position of camera and subject (and the distance a print is viewed at) , is completely false. As I said, any photography primer will tell you so. 
However, many photographers still talk about " a wideangle perspective or a tele compression".  Which is in reality shorthand for "I moved in close and used a wideangle to get the angle of view" or, "I was far away and used a telelens to get the exclusion of the surroundings that I needed."  Which means that they are acknowledging that it is the subject distance that creates the perspective they whilst  thinking that it was the lens. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

I am sure that Simone likes to use a longer focal length  for portraits because she does not like the effect of pressing a camera into people's faces. However, try taking a portrait with a 28 standing at a 50 mm distance and crop it down to 50 mm field of view. On the Q3 the only difference will be that DOF is one aperture value less shallow. It will look like it was taken with a Summicron 50.  Who needs 60 MP for a portrait anyway? You will be down to something like 30 where 10 MP is ample. 

TRY IT!! and put the prejudice aside.

There is a case for using multiple focal length lenses. They might draw differently, differ in rendering, contrast etc, or the photographer will feel comfortable getting it right in the camera. In that case (which is my case as well) a cropping camera is not for you. But that does not alter the idea behind the Q nor the basic geometrical principles of focal length and image projection.

Stop trying to confuse us with your discussions of optics and so called facts!
What we really need is Leica to engineer a completely new Q3 with a 50mm lens…

And another with a 35mm because some people prefer that focal length…

…I think there was some talk of a 40mm…

…and and another at 70mm because some people think that’s a pretty good lens length too…

I say chuck in a super telephoto version because, hey, why not — bird photographers deserve to use a Q3 too!

Leica could design a special harness so you could carry all your Q3s at the same time! Like the utility belt that Batman wears!  (so cool…)

Some people in this totally resolution inadequate forum have suggested that maybe you could just use a different camera with interchangeable lenses, buts that just crazy talk!

I demand that the Q3 satisfies exactly what I want from a camera and Leica should bend to my will!

Oh, and I want a pop-up flash too!

🤣

Am I being irreverent? You bet I am! I seriously can’t tell who is being serious anymore—it’s hilarious!

[M11 for me]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb thegobi:

Stop trying to confuse us with your discussions of optics and so called facts!
What we really need is Leica to engineer a completely new Q3 with a 50mm lens…

And another with a 35mm because some people prefer that focal length…

…I think there was some talk of a 40mm…

…and and another at 70mm because some people think that’s a pretty good lens length too…

I say chuck in a super telephoto version because, hey, why not — bird photographers deserve to use a Q3 too!

Leica could design a special harness so you could carry all your Q3s at the same time! Like the utility belt that Batman wears!  (so cool…)

Some people in this totally resolution inadequate forum have suggested that maybe you could just use a different camera with interchangeable lenses, buts that just crazy talk!

I demand that the Q3 satisfies exactly what I want from a camera and Leica should bend to my will!

Oh, and I want a pop-up flash too!

🤣

Am I being irreverent? You bet I am! I seriously can’t tell who is being serious anymore—it’s hilarious!

That was my ultimate proposal in post #97. On top of that I proposed to create a big bag to carry them all. The same way I would have a big bag for all SL zoom lenses that I want to take along. 

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, thegobi said:

Stop trying to confuse us with your discussions of optics and so called facts!
What we really need is Leica to engineer a completely new Q3 with a 50mm lens…

And another with a 35mm because some people prefer that focal length…

…I think there was some talk of a 40mm…

…and and another at 70mm because some people think that’s a pretty good lens length too…

I say chuck in a super telephoto version because, hey, why not — bird photographers deserve to use a Q3 too!

Leica could design a special harness so you could carry all your Q3s at the same time! Like the utility belt that Batman wears!  (so cool…)

Some people in this totally resolution inadequate forum have suggested that maybe you could just use a different camera with interchangeable lenses, buts that just crazy talk!

I demand that the Q3 satisfies exactly what I want from a camera and Leica should bend to my will!

Oh, and I want a pop-up flash too!

🤣

Am I being irreverent? You bet I am! I seriously can’t tell who is being serious anymore—it’s hilarious!

At first I completely misunderstood your post…🥲 Really funny! 😅

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Qwertynm said:

I don‘t think this is about prejudice. There certainly are downsides to shooting with smaller sensors or in cropmode, same effect really. Some people want a 50 f/1.7 and this you can’t simulate with a Q3 - no matter how many MPs you have. Other downside are the croplines. It’s not really feasible to shoot with the 50mm croplines long term if a 50mm is what you‘d want in a Q. You’re right that you get the same FoV cropping and with a real 50mm lens - no one disputes that. But there are differences that can’t be discussed away. Some prefer the 28, some would like a Q40/50. let’s see if Leica makes it happen. 

People have bee shooting with framelines since 1954…there is nothing wrong with APS or Four Thirds even, Olympus and Panasonic have a great line of cameras. And there are downsides to high res cameras too…

If you want a 50 mm Q, why? Put a Summilux 50 on your M and use that. Whoops, sorry… you get a 28 mm viewfinder with 50 mm framelines 🤔

[thegobi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

At first I completely misunderstood your post…🥲 Really funny! 😅

Maybe I made it too sarcastic 🤣

but seriously… I love the Q as a concept camera: a walk around 28mm for people that love that focal length—with enough headroom in resolution to also function as a 35 or 50 or 70 if you need that from time to time.

For me it is a street shooter, a landscape, and a close up (not quite) macro camera in one with a weather sealed fixed fast lens. Perfect.

….aaaaaaaand mine is a Monochrom as well—so I have been witness to arguments where people don’t get the Q concept as well as not getting B&W only 🤣

[Qwertynm]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

If you want a 50 mm Q, why?

Same reason others buy a summilux for their M. There is really no merit in discussing needs and wants. Everyone is different. Some buy a Porsche others buy a Lada. There is no right or wrong and people have different needs and wants.

Olaf wants a Q40/50 and you might not, that’s ok too. I bought a Q3 because I wanted a compact full frame autofocus camera. I don’t want a M nor a SL. And I don’t need the rangefinder experience with an EVF - I think this is a stupid design choice. You might feel different and I respect that. I‘m not necessarily in the market for a Q50 but I can see how others want that, especially with a fast F/1.7 Leica lens. 

[M11 for me]

May I ask again: Is it the idea that when we eventually get the Q40/50 from Leica we then will see over time as well a Q75 and a Q21 and a Q90 and maybe a Q135 as everyone differs and the wish for a Q40/50 is just one of all possible wishes. As everybody differs we probably need them all. Is that the idea? Why only a Q28 and a Q40/50 and not the others?

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by M11 for me

[Qwertynm]

I‘d rather have Leica make a rangefinder style SL camera. This way you can have relatively compact ff camera with SL lenses or super compact but without AF with M lenses and every FL you desire. 
 

I personally think the chance for a Q40/50 is slim as the Q2/3 with its wide angle/high MP sensor just works so well as a system. But I cross my fingers for those who want one. 

[Marc B-C]

39 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

May I ask again: Is it the idea that when we eventually get the Q40/50 from Leica we then will see over time as well a Q75 and a Q21 and a Q90 and maybe a Q135 as everyone differs and the wish for a Q40/50 is just one of all possible wishes. As everybody differs we probably need them all. Is that the idea? Why only a Q28 and a Q40/50 and not the others?

 

Perhaps the best idea would be a Q with removable lenses? Perhaps they could name it, oh I don't know, how about "CL", ah, hold on a minute.....

[Einst_Stein]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why do you think that Leica made the  Q3 60 MP.? It is the only camera where these high pixel counts make any photographical sense. This example demonstrates  the principle, not the Q. How could I have taken a 70 mm lens shot with one ? 

The point is that some photographers claim that there is a vast difference between a  28 mm shot cropped to a longer focal length field of view and a shot with a native focal length. Which, as long as you don't change the position of camera and subject (and the distance a print is viewed at) , is completely false. As I said, any photography primer will tell you so. 
However, many photographers still talk about " a wideangle perspective or a tele compression".  Which is in reality shorthand for "I moved in close and used a wideangle to get the angle of view" or, "I was far away and used a telelens to get the exclusion of the surroundings that I needed."  Which means that they are acknowledging that it is the subject distance that creates the perspective they whilst  thinking that it was the lens. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

I am sure that Simone likes to use a longer focal length  for portraits because she does not like the effect of pressing a camera into people's faces. However, try taking a portrait with a 28 standing at a 50 mm distance and crop it down to 50 mm field of view. On the Q3 the only difference will be that DOF is one aperture value less shallow. It will look like it was taken with a Summicron 50.  Who needs 60 MP for a portrait anyway? You will be down to something like 30 where 10 MP is ample. 

TRY IT!! and put the prejudice aside.

There is a case for using multiple focal length lenses. They might draw differently, differ in rendering, contrast etc, or the photographer will feel comfortable getting it right in the camera. In that case (which is my case as well) a cropping camera is not for you. But that does not alter the idea behind the Q nor the basic geometrical principles of focal length and image projection.

Allow me repeat one more time. 
Crop Q3 to 70mm you get sensor about 14.4mm x 9.6mm, slightly smaller than F43. 
Cropped to 90mm, you get about 11.2mm x 7.5mm, slightly smaller than 1”. 
Then it depends on how you like it. Your call. 

[jaapv]

37 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Allow me repeat one more time. 
Crop Q3 to 70mm you get sensor about 14.4mm x 9.6mm, slightly smaller than F43. 
Cropped to 90mm, you get about 11.2mm x 7.5mm, slightly smaller than 1”. 
Then it depends on how you like it. Your call. 

And as you are cropping from a 60MP camera that is ample. I get excellent 60x40 prints from my 8MP DMR. As you well know, the physical sensor size has little relevance. I feel a flashback to the mid-20th century coming on - no, my 24x36 Barnack will give exactly as good images as your 6x9 Kodak folder does...

 

[Olaf_ZG]

6 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

Same reason others buy a summilux for their M. There is really no merit in discussing needs and wants. Everyone is different. Some buy a Porsche others buy a Lada. There is no right or wrong and people have different needs and wants.

Olaf wants a Q40/50 and you might not, that’s ok too. I bought a Q3 because I wanted a compact full frame autofocus camera. I don’t want a M nor a SL. And I don’t need the rangefinder experience with an EVF - I think this is a stupid design choice. You might feel different and I respect that. I‘m not necessarily in the market for a Q50 but I can see how others want that, especially with a fast F/1.7 Leica lens. 

Your car comparison is funny, as Olaf had, and definitely would buy a Lada again, preferably a Niva. Cheap as a Q, and beats out any land rover in muddy fields. Perfectly for where I live.

But then, I have a company car. No choice in brand or model. Like a Q28. Take it or leave it. But man, this Lada is a dream…

[Pelu2010]

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!

10 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I don‘t think this is about prejudice. There certainly are downsides to shooting with smaller sensors or in cropmode, same effect really. Some people want a 50 f/1.7 and this you can’t simulate with a Q3 - no matter how many MPs you have. Other downside are the croplines. It’s not really feasible to shoot with the 50mm croplines long term if a 50mm is what you‘d want in a Q. You’re right that you get the same FoV cropping and with a real 50mm lens - no one disputes that. But there are differences that can’t be discussed away. Some prefer the 28, some would like a Q40/50. let’s see if Leica makes it happen. 
 

All Shot Witt q3 

 

 

 

All Images wird the q3 and without cropping. 
i guess if you adapt and work with the 28mm you will get good images, even if the lens is a 28 mm. 
 

it does not matter .

yes you won’t get the look of a 400 mm lens, but this is the most boaring look I can think of. 
 

this lens and camera keeps you fresh. 
 

cheers peter 

 

[newtoleica]

Funny thread... Well I just went and bought a new Q2 yes TWO this evening in London. Happy late Xmas!

[docmarten]

And I am thinking to replace two systems with changeable lenses with the Q2, and I exactly do know what that means with all implications. What I do not know is: do I really want this? There is no excuse afterwards...and no discussion!

[FocusDot]

On 12/27/2023 at 10:33 AM, jaapv said:

The point is that some photographers claim that there is a vast difference between a  28 mm shot cropped to a longer focal length field of view and a shot with a native focal length. Which, as long as you don't change the position of camera and subject (and the distance a print is viewed at) , is completely false. As I said, any photography primer will tell you so. 
However, many photographers still talk about " a wideangle perspective or a tele compression".  Which is in reality shorthand for "I moved in close and used a wideangle to get the angle of view" or, "I was far away and used a telelens to get the exclusion of the surroundings that I needed."  Which means that they are acknowledging that it is the subject distance that creates the perspective they whilst  thinking that it was the lens. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

I am sure that Simone likes to use a longer focal length  for portraits because she does not like the effect of pressing a camera into people's faces. However, try taking a portrait with a 28 standing at a 50 mm distance and crop it down to 50 mm field of view. On the Q3 the only difference will be that DOF is one aperture value less shallow. It will look like it was taken with a Summicron 50.  Who needs 60 MP for a portrait anyway? You will be down to something like 30 where 10 MP is ample. 

TRY IT!! and put the prejudice aside.

There is a case for using multiple focal length lenses. They might draw differently, differ in rendering, contrast etc, or the photographer will feel comfortable getting it right in the camera. In that case (which is my case as well) a cropping camera is not for you. But that does not alter the idea behind the Q nor the basic geometrical principles of focal length and image projection.

While I fully agree with you in regards to perspective of 50mm lens shot  being exactly the same as 28mm shot cropped to 50 mm and that those 15MP you get when you crop to 50 mm is more than in enough in 99% of cases (especially when we have tools as Topaz Gigapixel etc.) - it is not true that the DOF difference will only be one aperture value less shallow. It will not look like 50 Summicron, it would be more something like 50 Elmarit (actually f/3.0 to be precise).

If you crop to 35mm then you get equivalent of 35 Summicron (approx. f/2.1)