Of course I'm assuming ZE, Otus and Art lenses on the front here aside from 100 (where I'm assuming a 100 Macro-Elmarit-R on an adapter)
I wrote a big long response. But I guess at the end of the day, you could argue anything. It's personal preference. Though I will say that there are a few FLs that would be a tough argument to win if you were betting against Leica. Couldn't say the same about Canon, no matter what you stick in front of it (well maybe save for those awkward focal lengths, but that's not really fair game now is it?).
It doesn't matter anyway.. Canon is joining the FF mirrorless league soon.
This is one of those hidden catches about Leica... and makes me wonder if they are trying to protect us from ourselves? If you consider the M240 tops out at 60 seconds and then only at ISO 200... As ISO is increased, the longest time possible gradually decreases to a maximum of 8 seconds above ISO 800... Has anyone checked this on the Q? Also, does it do mandatory dark frame subtraction at long shutter speeds, or can it be disabled?
Maybe it won't work for everything, but is exposure stacking an option? I.e. for either increasing the effect of motion blur or for reaching a desired exposure value?
uhoh7 wrote:
"Only" haha. Pick a focal length between 12 and 135, and tell me one where the Canon system will shoot better.
mawz wrote:
15, 21, 25, 35, 50, 55, 85, 100, 135
Of course I'm assuming ZE, Otus and Art lenses on the front here aside from 100 (where I'm assuming a 100 Macro-Elmarit-R on an adapter)
Well, you have to take Charlie's comments with a grain of salt. It's not like he's biased! Haha...
Coincidentally, until the 5DS cameras, all of those Zeiss SLR lenses technically perform better on a Leica M due to the better sensor and slightly higher resolution.
rscheffler wrote:
This is one of those hidden catches about Leica... and makes me wonder if they are trying to protect us from ourselves? If you consider the M240 tops out at 60 seconds and then only at ISO 200... As ISO is increased, the longest time possible gradually decreases to a maximum of 8 seconds above ISO 800... Has anyone checked this on the Q? Also, does it do mandatory dark frame subtraction at long shutter speeds, or can it be disabled?
Maybe it won't work for everything, but is exposure stacking an option? I.e. for either increasing the effect of motion blur or for reaching a desired exposure value?
Well, you have to take Charlie's comments with a grain of salt. It's not like he's biased! Haha...
Coincidentally, until the 5DS cameras, all of those Zeiss SLR lenses technically perform better on a Leica M due to the better sensor and slightly higher resolution. ...Show more →
.. True about the 5Ds. Oh and Carlie's not the only one who's biased around these parts
I'll check on the long exposure thing, will report back.
fishjump wrote:
I have the same question as Earl, but visiting the local Leica store they never answered my question. I believe you are stuck with a max of 30s.
Paul
I have just tried the T setting and the max time at ISO 100 appears to be 30s - blank frame noise reduction is also applied. This reduces gradually to 8s at ISO 1600
Yes sorry, I went out straight after I posted that, and was out all day.
Nico is right, 30 seconds (there isn't a bulb mode, but with cap on it's 30 seconds at base ISO even).
There's a time lapse mode, where you can set intervals and it takes pictures. Nobody really mentioned that I don't think. It's cool, but I'm not really one for tripod shooting like that.
I suppose you could put it on time lapse, and walk around all day zone focused and see what happens.
taemo wrote:
hi Adam, can you please share how long exposure (longer than 30s) works on the Q?
seriously tempted on getting the Q as main travel/landscape camera but would like to do 60-120s long exposure.
is it possible on the Q?
earl
I think anything over 60 seconds and I'd probably stack exposures no?
You could use the time lapse feature to do a bunch of exposure stacks and probably get some great results.
For anyone who subscribes to Sean Reid, he just posted a very thorough side by side (with and without correction) test of just how much impact the digital software correction for distortion impacts off axis resolution for the Q. It's pretty dramatic at longer distances. That said, the camera as a whole is pretty phenomenal.
rscheffler wrote:
Coincidentally, until the 5DS cameras, all of those Zeiss SLR lenses technically perform better on a Leica M due to the better sensor and slightly higher resolution.
Is the "until the 5Ds cameras" even true? Resolution scores would definitely be better because of the absurd megapixel count, but that's hardly the most important factor (*cough*dynamicrange*cough*).
Now, if we're comparing the M240 sensor to Sony's 24 or 36 megapixel sensors...
Tariq Gibran wrote:
For anyone who subscribes to Sean Reid, he just posted a very thorough side by side (with and without correction) test of just how much impact the digital software correction for distortion impacts off axis resolution for the Q. It's pretty dramatic at longer distances. That said, the camera as a whole is pretty phenomenal.
There is one flaw in his comparisons which he acknowledges - he is using different raw converters for corrected and non corrected DNG conversion that do have different default sharpening and contrast settings. I have no doubt that there is minor quality degradation in the corners which in normal use is not an issue for me - but his methodology is not scientific and the image sample comparisons are misleading particularly for readers that do not own the camera.
nicoimages wrote:
There is one flaw in his comparisons which he acknowledges - he is using different raw converters for corrected and non corrected DNG conversion that do have different default sharpening and contrast settings. I have no doubt that there is minor quality degradation in the corners which in normal use is not an issue for me - but his methodology is not scientific and the image sample comparisons are misleading particularly for readers that do not own the camera.
Either by opening the DNG in an older version of Lightroom/ ACR (pre official support for the Q) or by stripping the EXIF info from the raw file, he could get around any minor raw differences. The technical effect of double interpolation through major distortion correction and resizing is not minor. It's obvious the lens is super sharp optically but it also suffers this extreme native distortion by design. Probably most folks who don't use the Q for very critical stuff at distance where corner detail might matter could care less (and the folks who do need a camera to perform critically across the frame are using a higher resolution solution anyway, including an M). As Sean Reid said at length at the end of this review section, in everyday shooting without pixel peeping, most would not notice but it's undoubtable that if the Q did not require so much digital correction, it would produce a better file.
My sharpest lens in the corners was a Canon fisheye 15/2.8. The corners were as sharp as the center. Once you don't need to make corrections for rectilinearity it's easy to make a sharp lens across the frame. Now the real question is, if this lens design was optically corrected, would it have had better corners? I have no idea personally.
edwardkaraa wrote:
My sharpest lens in the corners was a Canon fisheye 15/2.8. The corners were as sharp as the center. Once you don't need to make corrections for rectilinearity it's easy to make a sharp lens across the frame. Now the real question is, if this lens design was optically corrected, would it have had better corners? I have no idea personally.
.. True about the 5Ds. Oh and Carlie's not the only one who's biased around these parts 