Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PeterAit on May 25, 2023, 10:03:07 am
-
I was looking at this new full-frame camera and it interests me in many ways except one -- why on earth would they limit it to a fixed 28mm lens? That takes it off the table for me. Why not, say, a 28-105 zoom?
Grumble.
-
and read what Diglloyd has to say about that lens....
-
and read what Diglloyd has to say about that lens....
… yawn 🥱
-
why on earth would they limit it to a fixed 28mm lens …
Leica history and reviews will tell all (well almost).
Two written Leica Q3 reviews:
Jono Slack
https://www.slack.co.uk/leica-q3.html
reid reviews (subscription)
https://www.reidreviews.com/article-content.asp?ArticleID=595&PageNum=1&retina=1&newwin=1
Three videos to note among (too) many …
Mathphotographer
https://youtu.be/3GBWoFeLApQ
Bobby Tonelli
https://youtu.be/mmAX5od2Dks
Art of Photography
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvC7TABnFG8
-
… yawn 🥱
Yawn all you want but the truth is the lens is not sharp in the corners. Not great for such a short lens. Anyway an interchange Q3 would have been too much production and profit for Leica not to mention killed the M system which is doomed anyway for some of us.
Ask yourself if you have to produce high quality images using a 28mm lens for submission to get a project what lens would you use? If you're just taking snapshots for the web like 90% of Q buyers who cares.
-
PeterAit, I think Leica would argue that this kit covers what you are asking for. I believe this camera is 60+ megapixels and shoots in various crop modes covering the lens range you want. Shooting the lens in its various crop modes still leaves you with more enough megapixels. At least, I believe, this is Leica's argument.
mark
-
PeterAit, I think Leica would argue that this kit covers what you are asking for. I believe this camera is 60+ megapixels and shoots in various crop modes covering the lens range you want. Shooting the lens in its various crop modes still leaves you with more enough megapixels. At least, I believe, this is Leica's argument.
mark
It seems to me that Leica wants to establish a niche with the Q series. The crop modes are interesting in that they are in camera. Of course you can do it with another 60MP camera, but in post processing. In the UK, the Leica Q3 is £5300. The Sony A7RV is £3999. Add a lens such as a 24mm, eg the 1.4GM at £1,199 or the 2.8G at £629 and the price is in the same ball park. OK you can add longer lenses to the Sony, but the size and weight of the Sony 24mm package are bigger and heavier than the Q3.
I think it is nice that we, as customers, have choice.
Jonathan
-
Yawn,
I guess that Lloyd got a bad lens, as I have no issues with the Q2 and corner sharpness. Excellent optic for a 28mm lens. Sure wide open you can see a bit of corner sharpness, but by F 4 even 3.2 corners are fine, at least from the images I have taken with the camera.
Can't speak to how same lens will work on the Q3 with the increased resolution. However I can state I found that the Sony 61MP sensor was not as great a step up in overall DR as I had hoped, having used it extensively in the Sigma FP-L.
Paul
-
I find the Q3 tempting but will most probably end up using that money for some equipment actually useful to move my photography forward. :-)
Typically a GFX100 mkII comes to mind.
Among impusle purchases I would probably be more tempted by a H2D-100 if it had eye AF… an eye AF that works.
Cheers
Bernard
-
I find the Q3 tempting …
Not just you!
Strong demand for Leica Q3: Buyers face a wait of up to six months (https://www.macfilos.com/2023/07/03/strong-demand-for-leica-q3-buyers-face-a-wait-of-up-to-six-months/)
-
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nfE7nYvDg3U&feature=shared
By a once rabid owner.
-
The Q3 is certainly quirky and I think it could fairly be called a niche product—both characterizations presumably also fit the new Q3 43, which is identical except for having a 43mm f/2.0 lens—and its price seems outrageously steep for a fixed-lens camera, at least beyond the shores of Leicaland. But it works for me as a general "walk-around camera" because it's reasonably compact and tolerably light and it looks like a consumer point-and-shoot. It's actually not much smaller than my Fujifilm X-T5 with a compact zoom attached, but it doesn't seem to attract as much attention: it doesn't announce "I'm an old guy walking around making photographs with my complicated camera." It's not quite like shooting with a cellphone (something I also often do), but it's reasonably close.
I'm satisfied with the 28mm f/1.7 lens. I haven't performed any objective tests, but even wide open the corners are fine to my eye, and I'm pleased with the colors and contrast of the way the raw files appear before any editing in Lightroom. From what I've read, the 60-megapixel sensor isn't superior to the other high-resolution sensors that are available on some other current full-frame cameras. It's a bit noisy at higher ISOs, but Lightroom's new Denoise feature is effective at cleaning up those images without introducing objectionable softness along contrast boundaries; DxO Pure Raw 4 also does a good job. The mechanical leaf shutter is all but noiseless. I haven't tested, but I suspect the electronic shutter exhibits considerable rolling shutter effect during panning because of the resolution of the sensor—although I don't think this is a camera anyone would be tempted to use for fast action.
For someone who is accustomed to using a zoom lens—I don't like to carry multiple primes when walking around—the wide angle always displayed by the (excellent) viewfinder was a bit jarring at first, but I expected that going in and I've more-or-less adapted my shooting style when I'm using the Q3. Besides, as the Leica marketing literature says, with 60Mpx to play with, cropping is quite feasible. And, as it turns out, in addition to a 27-82mm full-frame-equivalent zoom, the lens I use most often on my Fujis is a 15-36mm equivalent. Having said that, I'd prefer if the Q3 had a 35mm lens instead of the 28mm one.
But from my perspective (pun intended), what really stands out in the Leica Q series is the firmware. Modern digital cameras are essentially computers with optical peripheral devices and their designers often seem all too eager to demonstrate how many capabilities they can pack into their firmware. In the software industry, we used to call this "creeping featurism." The Q3 provides the most pleasant shooting experience I've yet encountered in a modern mirrorless camera. After using the menus to set up appropriate "profiles"—Leica's term for specific clusters of settings that the user creates for particular purposes or types of subjects—typically the only shooting adjustments that need to be made after selecting the appropriate cluster are available from the manual controls for focus, aperture, and optionally exposure compensation and shutter speed. The Q menus essentially become configuration tools rather than shooting controls, and the few menu selections that you're most likely to modify are available on a single page that is always available at the push of a dedicated button.
The availability of manual controls that corresponded to those on film cameras is what initially attracted me to the crop sensor Fujis, but the Fuji user agent never achieves the minimalism and clarity of its Leica counterpart. As I recently said elsewhere, as I have gotten older and more irritable, a congenial shooting experience has become increasingly important to me.
-
I've been awaiting a longer focal length lens version of the Q series for years and at last it has arrived in the form of the Q3 43.
On 26th September 2024, at precisely 2PM GMT (official release date and time) I added it to my basket, took a huge gulp and paid. WTF. Having never previously owned or even used a Q camera it was an act of considerable faith. I had previously owned the M9, a couple of M 240 bodies and a series of Leica M lenses. Loved them, but serious eyesight issues meant I could no longer reliably focus with the rangefinders. I subsequently switched to Nikon Z with Nikon Z and Voigtlander Z lenses. Happy days.
I already owned two 40mm lenses, the Z 40mm f/2 and the Voigtlander f/1.2 Nokton Aspherical in Z mount and the focal length had become a favourite, so I had no concerns there about the 43mm focal length.
First impressions - and unfortunately due to ill health they have been more limited than I would have liked - with the camera have been very positive. Phew. The build is unsurprisingly first class. Once learned the operating system and menus are simplicity personified - take note other manufacturers.
The 43mm APO lens acutance is outstanding, simply the sharpest lens I've ever owned including the Z 50 S and 85 S f/1.8 S lenses both of which are widely highly regarded. The leaf shutter is so discrete. In a perfect world I would have preferred the lens to be a little more compact but that would no doubt have led to unacceptable compromise.
The camera is intended to be my walk-around camera, covering my travel and street work. The macro facility is proving useful for my horticultural work. In short a relatively discrete, compact and lightweight all-rounder. My Nikon Z cameras will of course still allow me a greater range of focal lengths, most notably ultra wide for those narrow alleyways in Morocco, India and Greece, as well as short telephotos for portraiture and additional reach.
Downsides, inevitably there always a few. The macro facility can't be used in combination with the supplied lens hood when a filter is fitted: duh. Work-around = the optional round hood at £200, this is after all, Leica! The HDMI and USB-C output cover is an accident waiting to happen. The viewfinder is form over function, allowing stray light to enter the viewfinder in bright light: come on Leica, at least allow an alternative or accessory rubber hood to be attached. Please. No charger supplied, but this seems to be the norm now.
I use this setup to test all of my new lenses. Shot as DNG-L, Q3 43, ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/200s. Tweaked a tad in ACR. The snail is sharper than I've seen from any of my other lenses, including Z 50 S f/1.8 & Z 85 S f/1.8.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Q3-_43_Test.jpg)
100% crop
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Q3-_43_Crop.jpg)
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Dahlia2.jpg)
-
Congratulations, Keith; I admire your courage! That said, there are times in life when "suck it and see" is the only way to go.
As a matter of interest, are these shots hand-held?
Though I don't contemplate any Leica in my life, for some reason that's not altogether clear to me, you have just made me think of putting the cellphone to sleep for a while. I think it's conscience-related: I bought a Nikkor 1.8/85 G some time ago and have hardly used it - also for eye-related problems, so now I think it's time to give it a whirl and find out where I was before iPhone entered the picture.
I particularly like the flower shot...
-
Congratulations, Keith; I admire your courage! That said, there are times in life when "suck it and see" is the only way to go.
As a matter of interest, are these shots hand-held?
Though I don't contemplate any Leica in my life, for some reason that's not altogether clear to me, you have just made me think of putting the cellphone to sleep for a while. I think it's conscience-related: I bought a Nikkor 1.8/85 G some time ago and have hardly used it - also for eye-related problems, so now I think it's time to give it a whirl and find out where I was before iPhone entered the picture.
I particularly like the flower shot...
Hi Rob, thanks. The health issues have really helped to focus my mind, the acceptance that life is not a trial run and we only get one chance at it.
Yes, all images were handheld, including the test shot that was just that, a test.
Here's hoping your recent eye interventions now allow you to get behind a camera again.
Best
Keith
-
For anyone else tempted by the new Q3 43, Gordon Laing of Cameralabs has posted an exhaustive video review (https://youtu.be/TtsB-4BnoHs?si=eHs8BFXs5fUunemy) of the camera. (It's rather long and, frankly, I'm tempted to characterize it as "exhausting," but in fairness it does cover a lot of ground.) Although the lenses are different, the discussion of the feature set otherwise applies equally to the original 28mm Q3.
-
For anyone else tempted by the new Q3 43, Gordon Laing of Cameralabs has posted an exhaustive video review (https://youtu.be/TtsB-4BnoHs?si=eHs8BFXs5fUunemy) of the camera. (It's rather long and, frankly, I'm tempted to characterize it as "exhausting," but in fairness it does cover a lot of ground.) Although the lenses are different, the discussion of the feature set otherwise applies equally to the original 28mm Q3.
Well, if I were in that market, the Leica would get my money. I would also stock up with electrician's black tape.
-
. . . I would also stock up with electrician's black tape.
Ask, and Amazon shall provide (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FJJ3XM6?tag=lufregex-20).
-
Jesus, how lazy can anyone get? ;-)
-
There's also the official Leica version, hand-crafted in Wetzlar, at $50 / €50 / £40 per dot.
-
Thinking more on the theme of a fixed lens camera, and extending that thought to an only camera, I do have a little mileage upon which to call. On my Nik D200, a cropped frame thing, though I still own a full range of glass between 24mm and 180mm (with a 500 Reflex if that counts), it seems to me that I have had most usage out of a 50mm that on that camera, becomes a 75mm. Thus, if there existed a Q with a fixed 75mm, cost notwithstanding, it would be one helluva temptation.
An iPhone could, in my world today, handle everything else except people. A Q 75 would certainly have the pixels to allow cropping of heads if that was wanted, without distortion. Would have been excellent during my fashion days. I liked longer lenses, but this is a one-lens situation I’m analysing. It would even give decent full-length studio shots against a Colorama roll.
Obviously, a child before my time.
-
There's also the official Leica version, hand-crafted in Wetzlar, at $50 / €50 / £40 per dot.
Holy S!
-
Well, if I were in that market, the Leica would get my money. I would also stock up with electrician's black tape.
My black sticky dots arrived today. 3 quid for fifty.
;D
-
There's also the official Leica version, hand-crafted in Wetzlar, at $50 / €50 / £40 per dot.
I’m in!
Link ?
-
My black sticky dots arrived today. 3 quid for fifty.
;D
A bargain!
;-)
-
There's also the official Leica version, hand-crafted in Wetzlar, at $50 / €50 / £40 per dot.
I’m in!
Link ?
Well, they're painstakingly assembled one at a time by the Gnomes of Wetzlar, so needless to say they're currently back-ordered, with shipments from orders entered today tentatively estimated to take place in 2026. But there there's an outfit in Hong Kong that is offering them on Ebay—the listing assures you they're the genuine article—at a mark-up of only 50 percent.
-
Well, they're painstakingly assembled one at a time by the Gnomes of Wetzlar…
Excellent, Chris, very good - luv it!
-
Spiral. Q3 43, handheld, ISO 400, f/5.6, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Spiral3.jpg)
-
Nice graphics, Keith. Is that a touch of colour I spot, and are you into mind games right now? ;-)
I hope this sees you doing more black/white…
By the way, what is “behance”?
Rob
-
Nice graphics, Keith. Is that a touch of colour I spot, and are you into mind games right now? ;-)
I hope this sees you doing more black/white…
By the way, what is “behance”?
Rob
Thanks, Rob. The bottom two thirds of the image is behind glass. Actually the whole image is in full colour. The subject was essentially monochromatic with just a hint of colour here and there including the green fire escape sign a third way down on the right edge.
Behance is an Adobe image sharing site, or as Adobe put it "Bēhance, is a social media platform owned by Adobe whose main focus is to showcase and discover creative work". There's a link on my website and in my signature here. Adobe Behance is a little more phone and tablet friendly than my website.
-
Thanks, Rob. The bottom two thirds of the image is behind glass. Actually the whole image is in full colour. The subject was essentially monochromatic with just a hint of colour here and there including the green fire escape sign a third way down on the right edge.
Behance is an Adobe image sharing site, or as Adobe put it "Bēhance, is a social media platform owned by Adobe whose main focus is to showcase and discover creative work". There's a link on my website and in my signature here. Adobe Behance is a little more phone and tablet friendly than my website.
Did I read somewhere that Adobe has a “showcase” system where they reserve the right to use your lodged images as they choose?
Rob
-
Did I read somewhere that Adobe has a “showcase” system where they reserve the right to use your lodged images as they choose?
Rob
Not anything I'm aware of, Rob.
From their terms and conditions. "No one but you owns your content, but we need access to your content as necessary to operate Adobe applications and services. We limit our access to very specific purposes."
The vast majority of those who use and contribute to Behance are working professionals, who wouldn't countenance such a restriction.
-
Seed. Q3 43, handheld, ISO 160, f/2.8, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Seed_Q3.jpg)
-
Seed. Q3 43, handheld, ISO 1600, f/5.6, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Seed_Q3_3.jpg)
-
The Laboratory. Q3 43, handheld, ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/The_Laboratory.jpg)
-
The Laboratory 2. Q3 43, handheld, ISO 125, f/2, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/The_Laboratory2.jpg)
-
Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/2, 1/5000s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Tea.jpg)
-
Ancient and Modern. Q3 43, ISO 400, f/2, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Ancient_Modern_SQ.jpg)
-
Q3 43, ISO 500, f/4, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Dahlia4.jpg)
-
Americano for two. Leica Q3 43, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/100s. I've yet to use this camera on a tripod, such is the joy of using it as my go to walk-around.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Coffee.jpg)
-
I've yet to use this camera on a tripod, such is the joy of using it as my go to walk-around.
I also find that the image stabilization built into the Q3's lens—the camera sensor does not have an image-stabilized mount—is also quite effective. Attached: Winter Camellia, 1/50 sec at f/11, ISO 250.
-
Q3 43, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/1000s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Cottage.jpg)
-
I also find that the image stabilization built into the Q3's lens—the camera sensor does not have an image-stabilized mount—is also quite effective. Attached: Winter Camellia, 1/50 sec at f/11, ISO 250.
When I first set up the Q3 43 I set image stabilisation to 'Auto' but found I was getting a lot of camera shake and blurry images. Setting it to 'On' solved the problem.
-
When I first set up the Q3 43 I set image stabilisation to 'Auto' but found I was getting a lot of camera shake and blurry images. Setting it to 'On' solved the problem.
I'm not persuaded any camera manufacturer is able to produce image-stabili[sz]ation* software (firmware) that is capable of intelligently determining when to enable the feature and when to disable it. I've been reading for years that IS must be turned off whenever a camera is on a tripod or otherwise immobili[sz]ed, but I've left it enabled on every camera I have owned which provided it, and never have been able to verify any ill-effects.
———
* Americans and Brits never seem to be able to agree on anything involving the language known as English, especially something said by anyone who was Irish.
"England and America are two countries separated by the same language."
— attributed to George Bernard Shaw, 1942.
"We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language."
— Oscar Wilde, 1887
-
A long time ago (10 or 12 years) some of my wildlife images were not as sharp as I hoped. A professional photographer told me to turn off the IS which was on the lens for any shutter speed faster then 1/500. I did and it solved the problem.
Jonathan
-
Q3 43, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/320s,
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Rowboat.jpg)
-
Leica Q3 43, ISO 125, f/4, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Dolphins.jpg)
-
Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/2, 1/200s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Silver_Leaf.jpg)
-
Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/2, 1/200s.
Ah... a work of beauty!
-
Thanks, Slobodan.
-
Leica Q3 43, ISO 5000, f/4, 1/60s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Trees2.jpg)
-
Re Q3 43
The crop modes look an interesting way of using a single lens, but inevitably pixels are lost. Has anyone shot images at the 90, 120 and 150mm crops and used Adobe super resolution or Topaz to generate pixels for printing larger? If so, how good are the results?
Jonathan
-
To be honest I haven't bothered using the crop modes but instead crop where necessary in post. A starting point of 60MP certainly helps. If I need to go wider or longer I'll use my Z system.
That said, the Q3 43 has become my walk-around of choice and the Nikon sees far less use.
You'll get far more feedback here (https://www.l-camera-forum.com/)
-
Q3 43, ISO 4000, f/4, 1/60s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Owl.jpg)
-
Nice photo and well exposed!
The Q3 seems like a good camera+lens,( and it should) though i would like to change lenses always.
There is not one holy grail lens for me.
-
Nice photo and well exposed!
The Q3 seems like a good camera+lens,( and it should) though i would like to change lenses always.
There is not one holy grail lens for me.
Thanks, yes, a tricky exposure but the camera handled it well.
The Q3 43 with the 43mm is proving somewhat of a holy grail for me in those circumstances where and when lens changing is not desirable or practical or where discretion is key.
As far as other lenses are concerned, I have a shelf full when needed.
-
Leica Q3 43, ISO 12500, f/3.5, 1/40s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Figures.jpg)
-
Moonrise over the volcano? Q3 43, ISO 5000, f/4, 1/60s.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Volcano.jpg)
-
Keith, you are, and have been an artist all your life. You could create magnificent pictures with a Box Brownie.
You and I both worked with Hasselblads for many years: I, fairly consistently, churned out commercial photographs where you, admittedly in other fields, produced works of beauty. The difference lies between our ears. That’s the reason the photographic world has always been divided, and that there are horses for courses.
Now I feel depressed. ;-)
-
ahhh Rob, but you enhanced natural beauty ! :)
-
Keith, you are, and have been an artist all your life. You could create magnificent pictures with a Box Brownie.
You and I both worked with Hasselblads for many years: I, fairly consistently, churned out commercial photographs where you, admittedly in other fields, produced works of beauty. The difference lies between our ears. That’s the reason the photographic world has always been divided, and that there are horses for courses.
Now I feel depressed. ;-)
But, Rob, you continue to produce works of great beauty, regardless of equipment, and now, all the remarkably, with a fone!
Best
Keith
-
From a trip to Morocco last month. Palm Shadows. Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/1250s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Palm_Shadows.jpg)
Despite travelling with a Nikon Z7 and three Z mount lenses as back-up, the Nikon gear was never used. That said the Nikons do still see use for differing genre particularly when combined with longer focal length lenses.
The Q3 43 continues to delight as my walk-around camera.
-
But, Rob, you continue to produce works of great beauty, regardless of equipment, and now, all the remarkably, with a fone!
Best
Keith
That’s very kind of you, Keith, but from where I sit, all I really see is the continuation of a kind of relatively recent photographic thread that’s not a lot more than a repetition of what I’ve already done. In a sense, it has turned into the same problem that beset me when I had my first studio, when that damned roll of white paper ended up controlling everything that I did.
In an attempt to escape it, and backed by the fact that the profitable bits of work eventually almost always came from location shoots, I let the place go. Of course, the need for studio space came back, and unlike London where, at that time, folks could rent studios by the hour, or whatever, that simply didn’t exist oop north. So, we had a studio built alongside our home, which from a planning permission perspective, had to be smaller, and never quite gave the freedom to light with greater spatial separation between things. However, it helped sell the house when we decided to move to Spain.
In retrospect, a massive error on my part was to destroy most of my negatives and trannies, simply because I saw no future connections with those old clients. What a huge boob that was! But, having written that, there was no Internet at the time, and I had never heard of a website. Art, as in photographic, was at best a New York aberration. It torments me to this day.
But yeah, repetition is such a downer on the desire to go back out and shoot. In a sense, it’s one of the several reasons - affordability aside - that always stops me from ponying up for new equipment: I fear ending up leaving it at home again. However, if I am still around when the new iPhone 17 arrives, and it really does have a different, better long lens set-up as has been suggested online, then yeah, I will probably buy it. Apart from anything else, I really could enjoy seeing stuff on a larger screen than my 13 Mini affords me.
-
Rob, I wouldn't worry too much about repetition. More often than not I choose to work in series and generally see this a positive, a means to achieving a coherent body of work. I'm sure there are many who when viewing my work could see repetition in abundance, as do I.
-
Rob, I wouldn't worry too much about repetition. More often than not I choose to work in series and generally see this a positive, a means to achieving a coherent body of work. I'm sure there are many who when viewing my work could see repetition in abundance, as do I.
Repetition is dangerous. If we analyse it a little bit, it becomes difficult to avoid the conclusion that its best friend is a dormant imagination.
In my effort to avoid this conclusion, I began a new project and roped in poor old Moriyama as psuedo “influence” and, thus, the one to share the blame with me. I must say, for quite a while that managed to muffle my inner demons, but the little buggers are wise to it now, as they were, in the end, to the Leiter variation that played that game with me before. In my defence, I have to say that neither of those heroes was actually ripped off, as my endeavours were always going to be futile since I live in the polar opposite kind of location to either of them. I suppose that what I did manage to do in the case of Leiter was to get very familiar with pretty much all of the shop windows in Pollença and Puerto Pollensa. A benefit of that is that I have been able to notice just how many businesses fail, only to be replaced by other ones offering exactly the same old tourist tat. I might well be mistaken here, but it’s my opinion that the era for that rubbish is long past, that tourism has lost a lot its innocence; I can’t remember the last time I saw anybody selling soft donkeys or faux Mexican hats (I write faux, but as Spain and Mexico share much, perhaps those sombreros were real). Maybe those hats are now all for sale in Texas, instead, gently allowing Mr T an excuse for closing borders.
The sensible part of my brain tells me that it is essential that I keep on clicking, if only to retain some sort of discipline within my system, whereas the alternative part says no, you are defying logic here: why would you expend resources on things that you can only hope are going to be beneficial to you? Save your energies instead for wandering down to the local bar every morning for your glass of hot, heart-warming Lacao while you still have the chance; waste not, want not! In truth, my answer to these inner idiots is this: stay faithful to your iPhone and don’t risk muggings by carting around a heavy part of digital history. At least in this way, armed with that generally invisible tool, I can claim to be obeying one of my last-remembered articles of Scout Law: be prepared.
-
Rob, I think we maybe talking at cross purposes.
It seems likely to me that you are highlighting the downside of repetition, in particular regarding the influence of third parties on your own work, whereas I'm commenting on repetition within my own work.
-
Rob, I think we maybe talking at cross purposes.
It seems likely to me that you are highlighting the downside of repetition, in particular regarding the influence of third parties on your own work, whereas I'm commenting on repetition within my own work.
Yes, point taken, but in my case, I think I am alarmed by my repetition of my own stuff, as I currently see and attempt to express it through the prism of two heroes; why should I be doing this? To add a form of self-inflicted misery, I am aware that this is something that seems reserved to my now photography, in the sense that when I was shooting professionally, the last thing I would have done was try to work from within another’s mindset or style. Frankly, that would have been far too difficult without access to the same surrounding conditions as the original would have enjoyed - or suffered, as the case might have been. Of course, the then understood folly of trying to do that seems, in a way, to have been set aside now, as a retired old guy who embarked upon his two themes whilst still as distant from the sources of the works of Leiter and Moriyama as he was from Avedon or Demarchelier back in the day. I guess it’s called masochism. ;-)
-
Apart from anything else, I really could enjoy seeing stuff on a larger screen than my 13 Mini affords me.
I guess you know you can show the photos of your phone on any recent television through WIFI.
-
I guess you know you can show the photos of your phone on any recent television through WIFI.
Hi, yes, I remember doing that once with my website, looking at it on my “smart” Samsung tv, which renders documentaries and movies quite beautifully. Sadly, the website images looked dreadful, which horrified me. The monitor I was using at the time, with the help of which I made the website pictures, was calibrated; I simply don’t understand how that could happen, that only my website could look so contrasty on the tv, and everything else seen on it appear normal. If the website also looked far too contrast on my iPad and iPhone, then yeah, I’d conclude my files were bad, but they look fine on those two Apple screens. Strange.
I tend to think that I carry some kind of ancient anti-tech curse on my shoulder; possibly it’s the weight of all those giants I have absorbed.
-
Hi, yes, I remember doing that once with my website, looking at it on my “smart” Samsung tv, which renders documentaries and movies quite beautifully. Sadly, the website images looked dreadful, which horrified me. The monitor I was using at the time, with the help of which I made the website pictures, was calibrated; I simply don’t understand how that could happen, that only my website could look so contrasty on the tv, and everything else seen on it appear normal. If the website also looked far too contrast on my iPad and iPhone, then yeah, I’d conclude my files were bad, but they look fine on those two Apple screens. Strange.
I tend to think that I carry some kind of ancient anti-tech curse on my shoulder; possibly it’s the weight of all those giants I have absorbed.
I had a Samsung once but now i am stuck to LG. Their TV's are better in color and better calibrated. My TV matches with the print on the wall .
for watching films they have a 'directors mode' that leaves the original input untouched.
-
Hi, yes, I remember doing that once with my website, looking at it on my “smart” Samsung tv, which renders documentaries and movies quite beautifully. Sadly, the website images looked dreadful, which horrified me. The monitor I was using at the time, with the help of which I made the website pictures, was calibrated; I simply don’t understand how that could happen, that only my website could look so contrasty on the tv, and everything else seen on it appear normal. If the website also looked far too contrast on my iPad and iPhone, then yeah, I’d conclude my files were bad, but they look fine on those two Apple screens. Strange...
Rob, the simplest answer is: adjust your TV! I can seamlessly transfer my pictures from the desktop to iPhone to TV and they all look identical. Why? Because I adjusted my TV controls to match my desktop.
TVs in stores are adjusted to show incredible contrast and saturation, such that would put Velvia to shame... that impresses, apparently, the masses.
-
Rob, the simplest answer is: adjust your TV! I can seamlessly transfer my pictures from the desktop to iPhone to TV and they all look identical. Why? Because I adjusted my TV controls to match my desktop.
TVs in stores are adjusted to show incredible contrast and saturation, such that would put Velvia to shame... that impresses, apparently, the masses.
But, if I adjust the tv, which looks perfectly nice with transmitted programmes, that will throw out the currently good viewing standard that I get with those productions. That said, all I watch is the national news and the occasional documentary.
Regarding your comment about stores: it’s amazing how different a row of tv sets manages to look! You’d think the first thing the shops would do would be to get their techie guy try and set them to look equally good! Some I have seen look terrible! There should be a market for tv screen calibrators…
I noticed some time ago that perceived screen sizes can fool one. One evening, slouched on the couch, iPad in lap, I realised that the screen of the tv, some four metres away, appeared no larger than the screen on the small iPad. Years ago, I’d have been concerned about anything electronic, capable of receiving radiation, sitting next to the family jewels. How things change. ;-(
P.S.
Just noticed that my later iPad now looks as if the screen size is double the tv one at the same four-meter distance!
-
Palm Shade, Morocco. Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/500s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Palm_Shade.jpg)
-
Hello, Harry! ;-)
-
Bonjour, hallo ;-)
-
Palm Shade, Morocco. Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/500s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Palm_Shade.jpg)
I don't often comment on photos but I have to applaud this one.
-
Mike, many thanks, very much appreciated!
-
Berber Fruit Seller, Morocco. Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/2, 1/500s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Berber_Fruit_Seller.jpg)
-
When using the simplified version of the DoF equations (valid on non-macro applications where focal length << focus distance), the effect of focus distance cancels in the equations and the equivalent DoF of the crop can be easily calculated multiplying the f-number by the native/cropped focal length ratio:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9MbwjeNkHoQbAIhwZx__Svato_qSk8YRoEv-fzUz0UQLsjIvipOLsCv4Nk4Gp5Lu9SJ5S1f_QDOLx_-WRTIbZmegeeAGqX9uDhQXJY6elDbCs65KqiqRmmxTBoATbEvUIBPM5vNpUueGZkOQAPsxHpAJs3vc4IH33FStG_rTk9pGcuDJDTlA1rc_rJR_p/s16000/cropdofaproxequationbn.png)
By applying this approximation to the Leica Q3 (Summilux 28mm f/1.7) crop modes we get the following equivalent DoF's:
- 35mm crop (39Mpx): 1.7*35/28=2.1 -> the crop's DoF is equivalent to a 35mm f/2.1
- 50mm crop (19Mpx): 1.7*50/28=3.0 -> the crop's DoF is equivalent to a 50mm f/3.0
- 75mm crop (8Mpx): 1.7*75/28=4.6 -> the crop's DoF is equivalent to a 75mm f/4.6
- 90mm crop (6Mpx): 1.7*90/28=5.5 -> the crop's DoF is equivalent to a 90mm f/5.5
Regards
-
Palm Shade, Morocco. Leica Q3 43, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/500s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Palm_Shade.jpg)
Outstanding photograph Keith.
BC
-
Great to see you still around, BC!
Best wishes -
Rob
-
Great to see you still around, BC!
Best wishes -
Rob
Yea, still kicking. Thanks Rob and oh by the way, I don't own that little Leica, but I kinda like it.
-
Outstanding photograph Keith.
BC
Many thanks to you BC, very much appreciated.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Keith
-
Yea, still kicking. Thanks Rob and oh by the way, I don't own that little Leica, but I kinda like it.
But you do still have the M8, don’t you? I think you had a kids’ dance class photo from it, as well as another of a girl in a darkish room setting? My memory is unreliable - or, perhaps, my todays are unreliable, and the memory is fine. Such are the mysteries of the longer life.
;-)
-
But you do still have the M8, don’t you? I think you had a kids’ dance class photo from it, as well as another of a girl in a darkish room setting? My memory is unreliable - or, perhaps, my todays are unreliable, and the memory is fine. Such are the mysteries of the longer life.
;-)
Rob, don't worry your memory is fine, better than most . . . except for my wife who can remember the price of everything I bought and broke for the last 20 years
Yes I stlll have the M, but mostly use it for tests in framing out motion work and sometimes for fun. I also still use the Leica S2, which may seem past it's shelf life compared to cameras that go to a gazillion iso and have focus settings for everything like 3 legged dogs, but I like it and usually use it with controlled lighting.
The S2 has a funny history as new it sold for 22k US and now you can buy them for the price of a McDonald's happy meal. Steep depreciation, but it is said the S series saved Leica, at least that's what I read on the world's most trusted news source . . . Google.
BC
S2 image below
-
Camel head is considered by many to be a delicacy and is sold in butcher shops and food markets throughout Morocco. Somewhat of a shock though for those of us with
our Western European sensibilities who buy our cow, sheep and pig in little sanitised packages in our supermarkets. Leica Q3 43, ISO 250, f/2, 1/125s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Camel_Head.jpg)
-
There’s a good export market to the US mafia.
-
Grandmother and Child, Meknes, Morocco. Leica Q3 43, ISO 640, f/5.6, 1/250s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Grandmother_Child_Meknes.jpg)
-
Weaver, Essaouira, Morocco. Leica Q3 43, ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/50s.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Weaver_Essaouira.jpg)