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.
I think you have a point!
With Canon, my fav was the 35mm. Now, I use 28 more than the 35. But it could also be because 35 is so much bigger and heavier. I also tried the 35/2.8, but I preferred the 28. Weird!
p.10 #2 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
JLim wrote:
I think you have a point!
With Canon, my fav was the 35mm. Now, I use 28 more than the 35. But it could also be because 35 is so much bigger and heavier. I also tried the 35/2.8, but I preferred the 28. Weird!
Yes, this has affected DSLR's as well since the introduction of Live View, and manufacturers are keen on adding functionality to LCD photography (ie touch-focus, swivel screens, focus magnification) I mean, when's the last time you used the viewfinder for any tripod work? Without even knowing, you could be using that same 35mm lens but standing a couple feet back when framing the exact same subject. Or you could be standing in the same spot, but placing your tripod a couple feet forward using a 28mm lens
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.
Two points to consider...
A difference of 5 - 15" is insignificant with regard to the difference between lenses with an actual focal length of 28mm vs 35mm's because you must physically move your position about 8-12 Feet (vs 5 - 15") to equalize the frame of view between these two focal lengths (at camera to subject distances of 30 feet or greater). This is the point many don't realize - there is a larger, practical difference between these two seemingly close focal lengths.
The other minor point is that if you have an articulating screen, you of course do not have to hold the camera away from your body.
p.10 #4 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Two points to consider...
A difference of 5 - 15" is insignificant with regard to the difference between lenses with an actual focal length of 28mm vs 35mm's because you must physically move your position about 8-12 Feet (vs 5 - 15") to equalize the frame of view between these two focal lengths (at camera to subject distances of 30 feet or greater). This is the point many don't realize - there is a larger, practical difference between these two seemingly close focal lengths.
The other minor point is that if you have an articulating screen, you of course do not have to hold the camera away from your body.
I'm not sure if your calculations are correct, but your point is well taken nonetheless. You cannot make a 28mm lens behave like a 35mm lens simply by extending your arms. And even if you do move the necessary distance to equalize what is in the frame, you still won't get identical images, because you will have changed perspective. I think this is the concept that some people are struggling with.
p.10 #5 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Two points to consider...
A difference of 5 - 15" is insignificant with regard to the difference between lenses with an actual focal length of 28mm vs 35mm's because you must physically move your position about 8-12 Feet (vs 5 - 15") to equalize the frame of view between these two focal lengths (at camera to subject distances of 30 feet or greater). This is the point many don't realize - there is a larger, practical difference between these two seemingly close focal lengths.
The other minor point is that if you have an articulating screen, you of course do not have to hold the camera away from your body.
Yes, your first point is true. But for subject distances within 20 feet, 15" is a huge difference. I tried it before on my Q (LCD at arm's length) and RX1R (EVF) and the final images were very close. I'd say 70% of my shooting is within that distance, so there really isn't a practical difference. For subjects further away, I can always resort to the 35mm crop mode if I need that framing.
Your second point has no relevance to my argument of 28mm replacing 35mm.
p.10 #6 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
I'm not sure if your calculations are correct, but your point is well taken nonetheless. You cannot make a 28mm lens behave like a 35mm lens simply by extending your arms. And even if you do move the required 8-12 feet to equalize what is in the frame, you still won't get identical images, because you will have changed perspective. I think this is the concept that some people are struggling with.
Rob
Yes, perspective remains the same, but I am only referring to the FOV for people that may think 28mm is "too wide." For street photography (which I believe is one of the biggest target audiences for the Q and RX2) I can get an effective 35mm FOV for most of my photos shooting with the LCD.
Also, you may want to consider that there are people that prefer the 28mm perspective (which is more dramatic imo) while also preferring the 35mm FOV.
p.10 #7 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
I'm not sure if your calculations are correct, but your point is well taken nonetheless. You cannot make a 28mm lens behave like a 35mm lens simply by extending your arms. And even if you do move the necessary distance to equalize what is in the frame, you still won't get identical images, because you will have changed perspective. I think this is the concept that some people are struggling with.
Rob
These were not calculations but the measured distance when comparing my Pentax 28/3.5K to my Nikkor O 35/2 lens just now on my A7r.
Yes, you are entirely correct that you will not get the same relationship of objects within your composition once you change your camera to subject distance. That is a basic principle that is taught (or should be taught) in every beginning photo course.
p.10 #8 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Zony_user wrote:
Yes, perspective remains the same, but I am only referring to the FOV for people that may think 28mm is "too wide." For street photography (which I believe is one of the biggest target audiences for the Q and RX2) I can get an effective 35mm FOV for most of my photos shooting with the LCD.
Also, you may want to consider that there are people that prefer the 28mm perspective (which is more dramatic imo) while also preferring the 35mm FOV.
No, the perspective is the same only if the camera remains the same distance from the subject, and technically speaking, there is no such thing as "28mm perspective," as perspective is determined by camera to subject distance, not the focal length of the lens. I think that what you may be referring to is the wide angle look that comes from getting closer to the subject and including a larger FOV. I have no problem with people preferring that particular look.
p.10 #9 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Zony_user wrote:
Yes, your first point is true. But for subject distances within 20 feet, 15" is a huge difference. I tried it before on my Q (LCD at arm's length) and RX1R (EVF) and the final images were very close. I'd say 70% of my shooting is within that distance, so there really isn't a practical difference. For subjects further away, I can always resort to the 35mm crop mode if I need that framing.
This is some pretty interesting stuff. If you hold the camera 12" closer to the subject because of using the back LCD then at 28mm you are covering about the same area at 11-12 feet as you would with a 35mm shoved up to your eye. Of course perspective will differ but nonetheless it makes sense as to why "standard" lenses for compacts/phones have seemingly become wider than the norm.
p.10 #10 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
robgo2 wrote:
No, the perspective is the same only if the camera remains the same distance from the subject, and technically speaking, there is no such thing as "28mm perspective," as perspective is determined by camera to subject distance, not the focal length of the lens. I think that what you may be referring to is the wide angle look that comes from getting closer to the subject and including a larger FOV. I have no problem with people preferring that particular look.
Rob
Yes, you are correct so I won't even bother explaining what I really meant to say.
And yes, a lot of times I go for the dramatic look with "35mm framing," Nowadays I just feel there's more creative freedom with a 28mm lens.
p.10 #11 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
pingflood wrote:
This is some pretty interesting stuff. If you hold the camera 12" closer to the subject because of using the back LCD then at 28mm you are covering about the same area at 11-12 feet as you would with a 35mm shoved up to your eye. Of course perspective will differ but nonetheless it makes sense as to why "standard" lenses for compacts/phones have seemingly become wider than the norm.
Another reason wider lenses are used on Smartphones is due to the typical subject matter most taken with Smartphones. Group shots at closer distances, travel, smaller interior spaces, etc...all of those favor a wider lens. My Samsung S6 Edge gives a horizontal field of view (across it's 16:9 aspect ratio) closer to that of a 24mm lens on FF35 for instance.
p.10 #12 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Another reason wider lenses are used on Smartphones is due to the typical subject matter most taken with Smartphones. Group shots at closer distances, travel, smaller interior spaces, etc...all of those favor a wider lens. My Samsung S6 Edge gives a horizontal field of view (across it's 16:9 aspect ratio) closer to that of a 24mm lens on FF35 for instance.
Oh, definitely, but group shots at closer distances means you really have to take the arms' length factor into consideration. If you had a viewfinder on the phone a 28-30mm equiv would achieve the same results.
p.10 #13 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
pingflood wrote:
Oh, definitely, but group shots at closer distances means you really have to take the arms' length factor into consideration. If you had a viewfinder on the phone a 28-30mm equiv would achieve the same results.
Yes, it's definitely a factor the closer you are to your subject with a typical Smartphone.
p.10 #15 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
An old thread, but I just snagged a used, mint condition Leica Q from a fellow FM member and so far, exactly what I was hoping it would be. My A7II kit is staying home more than it should, so wanted something that was easy to pick up and take with me no matter the situation, but was full frame and had a great lens. The Q is just the ticket. Technically probably inferior to the RX1II, but lovely to handle and I appreciate the minimalist approach - just the essentials so you can focus on shooting (I also like to shoot wider in general). Early days, but probably will sell my Sony gear now as it will sit at home 99% of the time. Would highly recommend.
p.10 #16 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
Since this thread has risen again (It is Easter after all.....) and I'm the OP, figured I'd chime in that essentially everything I've said from the start still holds true to this day.
Still enjoy the Q more than any camera I've owned, and its remained while Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Nikon bodies have come and gone.
The combination of compact form factor with basic yet complete control over all shooting parameters, fast and accurate AF, great subjection isolation (for its focal length), beautiful color and great tonality for B/W conversions and pretty good low light performance just hasn't been matched by any other camera I've owned.
Tons of stuff checked off a lot of boxes, but never the same overall winning formula....
My Fuji XPro2 for example has great controls and darn good IQ, but..... the AF wasn't as quick, especially when it got into lower light levels, and a good lens like the 18/2 just didn't have the same look at the 28/1.7
Leica has really made the camera even better with the latest FW update as well. You can now change the size of the AF box, which comes in really handy, and most useful to me, is that you can now assign the 4 custom user profiles to the Fn button.
That means hit "Fn" and the 4 user profiles pop-up on the screen, then since its a touch LCD, you just tap the one you want and it sets the camera to those settings.
Unlike some other cameras, you can control essentially all the parameters per each user setting as well
So for example, I can have User 1 set to have face detect AF and a moderate fast min. SS for auto ISO to help freeze subject motion. Want to shoot a landscape ? I can set User 2 to have a OIS turned on, a slow SS for auto ISO or maybe even manual ISO, and a one-spot focus. User 3 ? Maybe B/W settings, User 4, everything set to manual for pano's.....etc etc
I've owned plenty of cameras with user settings, but often times some factors are still global, like AF type, so while you can change the jpeg parameters etc, your still using the same AF type. Leica seems fairly unique to my knowledge in really giving you 4 complete camera settings at the touch of a fingertip
p.10 #19 · Leica Q vs Sony RX1rII - My in depth impressions
millsart wrote:
Since this thread has risen again (It is Easter after all.....) and I'm the OP, figured I'd chime in that essentially everything I've said from the start still holds true to this day.
Still enjoy the Q more than any camera I've owned, and its remained while Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Nikon bodies have come and gone.
The combination of compact form factor with basic yet complete control over all shooting parameters, fast and accurate AF, great subjection isolation (for its focal length), beautiful color and great tonality for B/W conversions and pretty good low light performance just hasn't been matched by any other camera I've owned.
Tons of stuff checked off a lot of boxes, but never the same overall winning formula....
My Fuji XPro2 for example has great controls and darn good IQ, but..... the AF wasn't as quick, especially when it got into lower light levels, and a good lens like the 18/2 just didn't have the same look at the 28/1.7
Leica has really made the camera even better with the latest FW update as well. You can now change the size of the AF box, which comes in really handy, and most useful to me, is that you can now assign the 4 custom user profiles to the Fn button.
That means hit "Fn" and the 4 user profiles pop-up on the screen, then since its a touch LCD, you just tap the one you want and it sets the camera to those settings.
Unlike some other cameras, you can control essentially all the parameters per each user setting as well
So for example, I can have User 1 set to have face detect AF and a moderate fast min. SS for auto ISO to help freeze subject motion. Want to shoot a landscape ? I can set User 2 to have a OIS turned on, a slow SS for auto ISO or maybe even manual ISO, and a one-spot focus. User 3 ? Maybe B/W settings, User 4, everything set to manual for pano's.....etc etc
I've owned plenty of cameras with user settings, but often times some factors are still global, like AF type, so while you can change the jpeg parameters etc, your still using the same AF type. Leica seems fairly unique to my knowledge in really giving you 4 complete camera settings at the touch of a fingertip...Show more →
I totally agree... I bought my Q about 6 months ago. By far the most used camera I have ever owned. I have it with me all the time. So easy to grab... and use.
