robgo2 wrote:
That's how I feel about the Q2 and Q2M. The shutter is virtually inaudible.
Also, the AF in the Q2 cameras is good enough to shoot from the hip or chest and get a reasonably high percentage of in-focus images. The trick is in learning to aim or angle the camera correctly so as to put the focusing rectangle on the subject. It takes practice, but so does zone focusing. My understanding is that a small aperture is usually required with ZF. This is not the case with AF, which leaves room for creative blurring of the foreground and background.
I am not trying to denigrate zone focusing. Photographers should use whatever works best for them. I should probably improve my own ZF skills. The Qs have a smooth-as-butter MF ring that would seem to be well suited to that purpose.
My Fujifilm X100V with it's leaf shutter, built-in ND filter and tilty screen is a great from the hip street shooter that works very well, but I could never get the zone focusing figured out. It's perfect for shooting in a quite chruch if you so choose..
zeitlos wrote:
Great portraits. Did you use the Croprames (35mm etc.)? Or are these 28mm portraits?
Thanks very much.
No, I did not use the in-camera crop frames. I prefer to crop in post-processing. What I have found is that the Q2M has such astounding resolution that massive cropping is possible without significantly compromising detail. This means that one can stand back a considerable distance from the subject, so as to avoid wide angle distortion of facial features which results from standing too close.. Then, just crop to taste in PP, and you can get a portrait that looks like it was taken with a 50 or 75mm lens.
"oops" on the EC, just about roasted the highlights.
Just donned on me how the EC probably got "oops". I had instinctively reached for the film advance lever a couple times after releasing the shutter. Must have "advanced" the EC on one of them.
Thought this might be fun. Q2 Monochrom full-frame and an extreme crop. The amount of detail in a crop this deep blows me away. When I was grabbing these shots, the guy on the other side of the inlet showed up taking pics. When he noticed me, he smiled for the picture...I only saw that zooming in to like 600%.
The original full resolution accessible in C1 is 9026x5720. The cropped image is 976x652. So that is what, around 10% of the original frame. No scaling on the cropped version.
Michael H wrote:
Thought this might be fun. Q2 Monochrom full-frame and an extreme crop. The amount of detail in a crop this deep blows me away. When I was grabbing these shots, the guy on the other side of the inlet showed up taking pics. When he noticed me, he smiled for the picture...I only saw that zooming in to like 600%.
The original full resolution accessible in C1 is 9026x5720. The cropped image is 976x652. So that is what, around 10% of the original frame. No scaling on the cropped version.
I know it is "taboo" for some to crop, but I've experienced on the order of 300% with both the CL and the M240-P, as well. I think that part of that is the sensor detail, but the other is the glass, in what I refer to as "quality of transition". By that, I mean that as the projected image moves across the frame, it doesn't "fall apart" when you look deep into it.
I've lately been looking at some things that were also around 400% - 600% before the "jaggies" showed up. Yes, that can be quite nice to know that you can look at something that far into it. Granted, I'd not promoting a lot of printing things at 10% ... BUT, it gives me the confidence to know that if I do print larger or crop deeper, the image holds up really well.
Having that in my "hip pocket" means I feel liberated to "take the shot", even when I know I'm "too far" with my given mounted lens (which is typically my Elmarit 28/2.8 ... i.e. emulating the ethos of the Q, albeit a smaller / slower lens).
It is welcome to know that someone else has an appreciation for the "Q ethos" that Leica has embraced the quality of their glass / sensor to allow for the crop ... legacy, taboo or not.
RustyBug wrote:
I know it is "taboo" for some to crop, but I've experienced on the order of 300% with both the CL and the M240-P, as well. I think that part of that is the sensor detail, but the other is the glass, in what I refer to as "quality of transition". By that, I mean that as the projected image moves across the frame, it doesn't "fall apart" when you look deep into it.
I've lately been looking at some things that were also around 400% - 600% before the "jaggies" showed up. Yes, that can be quite nice to know that you can look at something that far into it. Granted, I'd not promoting a lot of printing things at 10% ... BUT, it gives me the confidence to know that if I do print larger or crop deeper, the image holds up really well.
Having that in my "hip pocket" means I feel liberated to "take the shot", even when I know I'm "too far" with my given mounted lens (which is typically my Elmarit 28/2.8 ... i.e. emulating the ethos of the Q, albeit a smaller / slower lens).
It is welcome to know that someone else has an appreciation for the "Q ethos" that Leica has embraced the quality of their glass / sensor to allow for the crop ... legacy, taboo or not. ...Show more →
Great points. I don't quite understand the taboo nature of not cropping either. We have a medium to produce with, and with that we create the final presentation. While I do prefer to get it right in frame to the extent possible sometimes we simply see things that might have been missed when creating the image. The post I shared was absolutely an extreme and not something I see myself doing, but to your point...the transition through the frame can really show off the strengths. I was pretty shocked to see how extreme I could crop and have an image I could easily share in lower-resolution formats, especially something like Instagram. The other side of that however is sometimes like using a high quality turntable to play your favorite vinyl...the flaws are also exposed much.
