p.9 #1 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
True when the lenses in question are true 28 vs 35mm's. That was not my experience with the original RX1 though where there was not a significant difference between it's actual focal length and a 28mm. I don't know how much variability in focal length there is among specific RX1 Sonnar's but the one I owned was equal to 31-32mm's before digital corrections (which was never really necessary). When I shot it side by side with a 28mm lens, only a three foot difference was required to give the same frame at infinity. Furthermore, the accessory Zeiss 35mm optical finder for the RX1 was noticeably too narrow for the lens (and a Leica 28 finder was much closer to the actual angle of view).
p.9 #2 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
The RX1's true focal length is 32-33mm, but the Q's true focal length is 25-26mm, so there is a significant difference.
Rob
With regard to the Q, is that after the necessary digital correction (as the uncorrected image would be practically unusable)? I ask as the Q lens must have correction applied but that's not the case with the RX1 lens. If the Q's lens is 25-26mm's after the applied digital correction, that is wide indeed.
p.9 #3 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
With regard to the Q, is that after the necessary digital correction (as the uncorrected image would be practically unusable)? I ask as the Q lens must have correction applied but that's not the case with the RX1 lens. If the Q's lens is 25-26mm's after the applied digital correction, that is wide indeed.
Before correction, I believe, but there is also correction applied to the RX1 lens, though not as much.
p.9 #4 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
Before correction, I believe, but there is also correction applied to the RX1 lens, though not as much.
Rob
I'm not aware of any default correction applied to the RX1 that cannot be turned off during raw conversion. If you choose to correct the RX1 distortion, then you do get something closer to 35mm's. With the Q, the digital correction occurs automatically with, to my understanding, no option to turn it off. That makes sense as the uncorrected image does not fully cover the 35mm format into the corners and has some serious distortion. Except for perhaps a desire for some sort of special effect, it's not a useable image without digital correction. Many RX1 shooters do not digitally correct (as the distortion for most uses is not that severe and the lens fully covers it's format) but all Q users correct by default. Thus it does become a 28mm vs 32mm choice for most users.
p.9 #5 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
I think 28 and 35 are pretty darn similar and half the time I've mistakenly grabbed the 28/2 FE when I thought I was grabbing the 35/2.8 FE and vice versa, either way I made it work.
The Q after correction appears to be a true 28, at least per my frame of reference of other 28's.
The RX1 after correction appears to be about 32/33, or at least a bit wider than other 35's I've compared it with. Now maybe the 35/2.8 FE is actually a tough longer than a true 35, but regardless, the RX Sonnar is a little wider than most 35's.
Regardless though, I don't think shooting at 28 vs 33 vs 35 makes that huge of difference most of the time. Take a step back or crop a little. A good image is still going to be a good image and its not going to make or break you as a photographer.
Its like the 55/1.8 FE, its not a true 50, but after 30 minutes of shooting with it does it matter ? Does it take nice images ? Does it render well ? Then just enjoy shooting it.
I think we get way too hung up on pretty insignificant differences at times. I can enjoy shooting a 28 as much as a 33 as much as a 35.
Pair any one of those into a 3 lens kit with a VC15 and a Batis 85 and I'm a happy camper.
By all means, get the one you like best, its not a small amount of money, but its not really a life altering decision either.
If you can produce great images with a Q, you'll continue to produce great images with a RX2 and vice versa.
Just like if you produced great images with a RX2 you could even produce great images with a Batis 25mm or a Loxia 50. Seen it done for myself over and over.
Pick the overall camera that you enjoy using the best. That is all it really comes down to at the end of the day. Asking yourself "did I have fun doing this hobby, and am I looking forward to picking up that camera and doing it again tomorrow?"
That question is really the only one that matters. Doesn't matter if you get 50 likes on your image or if you didn't even take anything you felt worth sharing. Doesn't matter how clean your ISO12500 is, or if you can push a shadow 3 or 4 stops. Doesn't matter if your battery last for 200 shots or 400 shots. Doesn't matter if you paid $4000 or $400 for your camera.
Does that camera make you look forward to picking it up again? Does that camera make you actually want to go out and take more photos with it?
p.9 #6 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm not aware of any default correction applied to the RX1 that cannot be turned off during raw conversion. If you choose to correct the RX1 distortion, then you do get something closer to 35mm's. With the Q, the digital correction occurs automatically with, to my understanding, no option to turn it off. That makes sense as the uncorrected image does not fully cover the 35mm format into the corners and has some serious distortion. Except for perhaps a desire for some sort of special effect, it's not a useable image without digital correction. Many RX1 shooters do not digitally correct (as the distortion for most uses is not that severe and the lens fully covers it's format) but all Q users correct by default. Thus it does become a 28mm vs 32mm choice for most users. ...Show more →
The Q's correction (in RAW) is built into LR/ACR. However, for those who do not use that program, it has to be set as a default. As for the RX1, I routinely apply a correction, as there is significant barrel distortion, about 2%, as I recall.
p.9 #7 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
Regardless though, I don't think shooting at 28 vs 33 vs 35 makes that huge of difference most of the time. Take a step back or crop a little. A good image is still going to be a good image and its not going to make or break you as a photographer.
Its like the 55/1.8 FE, its not a true 50, but after 30 minutes of shooting with it does it matter ? Does it take nice images ? Does it render well ? Then just enjoy shooting it.
If we are talking true 28mm vs 35mm compared to your example of 55mm vs 50mm's, this comparison does not technically hold. The wider you go, the more dramatic a small change in focal length makes with respect to angle of view. So, there is a much greater difference between the AOV of a 28mm lens vs 35mm than there is between a 50mm lens vs 55mm lens.
While I get the "just shoot" vibe/ advice, for some users - particularly users who traditionally shoot around one major focal length (and the more experienced shooters) - a difference between a 28 and a 35 can make a big difference. That's just my opin of course though.
p.9 #8 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
The Q's correction (in RAW) is built into LR/ACR. However, for those who do not use that program, it has to be set as a default. As for the RX1, I routinely apply a correction, as there is significant barrel distortion, about 2%, as I recall.
Rob
I seldom ever applied correction when I owned my RX1, though I did not use it for architecture or uses where 0 distortion was needed. The slight distortion was actually beneficial when photographing people and for landscape use, it was not enough to be noticeable under most situations.
It's funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it) to think about 2% distortion being significant. In film days, it was. Now we have very expensive Zeiss branded lenses (like Batis) that build in 4% or more distortion that must be corrected by default...and, of course, the Q lens has at least twice that amount.
p.9 #9 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
While I get the "just shoot" vibe/ advice, for some users - particularly users who traditionally shoot around one major focal length (and the more experienced shooters) - a difference between a 28 and a 35 can make a big difference. That's just my opin of course though.
What would be an example of a "big" difference though ? And wouldn't an experienced shooter, by definition, be able to produce great results with either ?
At one newspaper I worked at we had both 28-70 and 24-70 EF lenses in the pool locker. You pretty much got what was there for your shift. 24 vs 28, which being wider should be as big of relative difference at 28 to 35. Never once in the years I was there did I ever come back and tell the guy working the picture desk that I couldn't complete an assignment because I had the "wrong" focal length.
I don't know if its a sign I'm a really bad photographer, or maybe a great photographer, but I can pick up a 28 or 35 and make either work just fine, same with a 24 vs 28 on the wide end of a zoom.
I certainly have my preference and like being a little wider, with the ability to crop if needed, since you can't go back and add width after the fact, but out of all the differences in that cameras that is going to affect how one shots, about 5mm in focal length isn't what I'd expect to be the most significant deciding factor.
p.9 #10 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
I think the preference of 28mm vs 35mm is also relative to the preference of shooting via the EVF or LCD because that will change the effective FOV quite drastically.
Focal lengths for these cameras aren't as restrictive and absolute as the film days when you were practically forced to shoot through the viewfinder. I could get a 35mm (or perhaps even longer) FOV from the Q with my arms fully extended. Likewise, you can get very close to a 50mm FOV shooting with the RX2's LCD at arm's length.
For people that prefer 35mm and mostly shoot with the EVF, 28mm may seem too wide. I felt the same way when I first bought the Q. I use the EVF almost exclusively with my RX1R, and I quickly realized 28mm was too wide for alot of my shots. However, I've adjusted to use the LCD (and touch AF) quite often and now I feel 28mm is more versatile. Of course there are times that the LCD can't be used (like broad daylight) and that's when the 35mm crop feature becomes quite useful.
So for me, the question is 28-35mm vs 35-50mm, and I prefer the former by quite a margin. (though I must admit the perfect gapping with my WATE and FE 55/1.8 also helped alleviate the decision)
p.9 #11 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Zony_user wrote:
I think the preference of 28mm vs 35mm is also relative to the preference of shooting via the EVF or LCD because that will change the effective FOV quite drastically.
Focal lengths for these cameras aren't as restrictive and absolute as the film days when you were practically forced to shoot through the viewfinder. I could get a 35mm (or perhaps even longer) FOV from the Q with my arms fully extended. Likewise, you can get very close to a 50mm FOV shooting with the RX2's LCD at arm's length.
For people that prefer 35mm and mostly shoot with the EVF, 28mm may seem too wide. I felt the same way when I first bought the Q. I use the EVF almost exclusively with my RX1R, and I quickly realized 28mm was too wide for alot of my shots. However, I've adjusted to use the LCD (and touch AF) quite often and now I feel 28mm is more versatile. Of course there are times that the LCD can't be used (like broad daylight) and that's when the 35mm crop feature becomes quite useful.
So for me, the question is 28-35mm vs 35-50mm, and I prefer the former by quite a margin. (though I must admit the perfect gapping with my WATE and FE 55/1.8 also helped alleviate the decision)...Show more →
This cannot be correct. The lens sees the same FOV regardless of where the camera is positioned. What changes by extending ones arms is the perspective, which has a different effect than changing the focal length. Please do not confuse the two.
p.9 #12 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
What would be an example of a "big" difference though ? And wouldn't an experienced shooter, by definition, be able to produce great results with either ?
It entirely depends upon the specific user and situation. When I shot architecture, hotels, etc. many years ago, 20 vs 24, or 24 vs 28 was make or break for the ability to get certain shots due to the fact that you just could not back up in certain spaces or conversely, the composition was not right from a specific position using the wider lens. So no, an experienced user will need a very specific focal length in certain situations (while optimizing the quality/ resolution from the film or sensor).
For more general shooting by an experienced user (documentary, street and so on), there might be less of a requirement for a specific focal length technically but artistically, there is often one angle of view that a user might naturally "see" a shot/ scene/ situation in versus another. It's very subjective but it's not the case that, in my experience, someone who has spent a career primarily using a 50 or 35 will just pick up a 28 and get the shot they pre-visualize. Most artist/ photographers I know or know of have a specific preference with regard to focal length.
p.9 #13 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
This cannot be correct. The lens sees the same FOV regardless of where the camera is positioned. What changes by extending ones arms is the perspective, which has a different effect than changing the focal length. Please do not confuse the two.
Rob
Well, I am referring to the FOV of the human eye and how it relates to the FOV of the lens when the camera is moved forward.
p.9 #15 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
I don't know if this is what Zony was referring to, but I would venture to guess that he is referring to the image compression that a focal length imparts on the image. You can't compensate for different focal lengths simply by changing your distance to the subject. This article explains it very well...
So, a 28mm lens and a 35mm will not be the same no matter how you compensate. At least in theory. Altho the effect won't be as drastic as a 35mm vs 85mm, for example.
p.9 #16 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Sorry Joe, but that author is incorrect. Subject to camera distance determines perspective and the resulting image compression or exaggeration, not focal length.
I can get much closer with a wider focal length and still have the same subject framing, which in turn gives an exaggerated perspective. If I want that same subject framing with a longer focal length I need to increase my subject to camera distance, which in turn affected the perspective.
Shame web pages like that "tutorials" one spread incorrect information
p.9 #17 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
Sorry Joe, but that author is incorrect. Subject to camera distance determines perspective and the resulting image compression or exaggeration, not focal length.
I can get much closer with a wider focal length and still have the same subject framing, which in turn gives an exaggerated perspective. If I want that same subject framing with a longer focal length I need to increase my subject to camera distance, which in turn affected the perspective.
Shame web pages like that "tutorials" one spread incorrect information
This one is pernicious and very common. It's kind of shocking to me sometime. If I had a nickel for every time someone who really should know better spread it...
p.9 #18 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Ok, I agree that the focal length of a lens doesn't determine perspective or image compression, as you said. So, for those people who first decide where to place the camera and then choose their lens, and finally do all their composition via cropping, the focal length has no impact on the image.
I work a little differently, however. I decide what lens I want to use first. Then I figure out camera placement in regards to framing and composition while trying to maximize my sensor capability. In doing so, the lens to subject distance will vary greatly depending on what focal length I'm using. In turn, that has a significant affect on the image compression. Therefore, the focal length does impact the perspective, albeit not directly. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong tho, since I never took a photography class.
p.9 #19 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Interesting, I'm just the opposite. I like to first choose the camera position based on perspective/composition and then choose the focal length for the desired crop.
This is relevant to the composition/framing discussion above. When shooting with devices that lack a viewfinder (ie Ricoh GR, iPhone, etc) it is practically impossible to get a true 28mm FOV because the lens is always 5" to 15" in front of your face. This is why I believe 28mm is the new 35mm in the digital era.
