10.11.2023

A Small Selection of Lenses Has a Number of Benefits for Urbanscape Photography. Not Least of Which is You Have Less to Carry.

 


"When you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail."  But you get really good at finding nails and better and better at driving them home.

I have a Leica M240 camera and a Q2 camera and in so many ways I'm just realizing they are mirrors of each other....at least in the ways that I use them. When I first pondered the idea of getting a Q2 I was repeatedly stopped in my tracks by my resistance to buying a camera that "only" has on it a "fixed" 28mm lens. My traditional way of thinking about lenses and sensors came from a time when digital camera resolutions were measured in single digits and not being able to zoom in or crop an image was more or less a reality. But I was really intrigued by the Q cameras and finally metaphorically "held my nose" and bought the camera "in spite of" that 28mm lens. For months afterwards I would opine to anyone who cared to pay attention that I would love the camera so much more if it had a 35mm or 40mm lens instead. 

But they something happened. I started to play around with the in camera frame cropping. The ability to see a composition surrounded by new frame lines that would give me, in addition to the 28mm, a 35mm and a 50mm with very little reduction in actual quality --- and even a decent (but lower res) 75mm, in a pinch gave me an increased appreciation for the whole idea. As I experimented more and more I found that the 35 or so megapixels of the 35mm crop resulting in completely convincing files. Why would it not since the resolution was still higher than most of the other cameras I have in inventory, even at full frame? 

At some point I became totally comfortable considering the Q2 as a 28-50mm compact camera and have been using it that way ever since. And loving the images that come out of it at any of the three finalized angles of view. 

When I bought an M camera I thought I would mostly use it as a body with a semi-permanently attached 50mm lens. That's the way I always used my M3 camera back in the early 1980's and I postulated that it would be the same with any new or future M camera. But my experiences with the Q2 made me want more angle of view flexibility. Especially if the M was the only camera I brought along for a photographic adventure. Of course I ended up with an M kit that is, basically, a 28, 35 and 50mm system. While in a side by side comparison the Q2 blows away the usability and the quality of using a 28mm lens on the M240, if you don't do a side by side comparison you'd be forgiven for thinking your 28mm Carl Zeiss lens on a 24 megapixel M body was pretty damn good. 

But you'd also have to admit that using the 28mm with the frame lines stretched to the very edges of the camera's optical finder is a lot less pleasant than looking through the wonderful 28mm EVF finder image in the Q2. 

In the M240's maiden voyage abroad (with me) I ended up duplicating pretty much what I already have in the Q2. At least when it comes to available and usable focal lengths/angles of view.  Silly me? Not in the least. This makes the Q2 and the M240 system the almost perfect back up cameras for each other. If, God forbid, one of the cameras bit the dust or was otherwise taken out of the equation the other camera would be able to make a near seamless replacement. 

In some regards the trip to Montreal with these two cameras was a learning experience for me. And I'm not too old to learn new things. Really.

What I really came away with was my understanding that the Q2 might be the ultimate travel camera for someone who wants to travel light, have high quality files and never worry about bringing along and changing multiple lenses in the field. I learned to trust the 15+ megapixel 50mm crops in the camera and became absolutely comfortable with the 35+ megapixel 35mm crops. If I found images that worked well at 28mm then that was obviously the ultimate sweet spot.

Was it a mistake to bring along the M camera and all three of my designated system lenses? No. I mean,  how else would you compare different cameras and methods of working if you couldn't fluidly switch back and forth between the two options? Especially when not only is handling pertinent but also differences in color and image quality. 

One thing I did notice was that no matter how great the 28mm lens on the Q2 or the M240 might be I still have a preference for the 50mm angle of view. I like distilling stuff down. But as my favorite (now retired) graphic designer points out, one of my compositional weaknesses is that I do tend to crop too tight. Not enough space around subjects. Oh well. It's always a work in progress. 

Here's a smattering of images from the two cameras and their respective lenses: 




Funny. At least to me...how much difference a change in the angle of composition makes 
in the images just above and just below. The face of the mannequin takes on two 
totally different looks.




Yes. I get it. Food.


these store posters generated a revived interest for me in Halloween.
I think this might be a fun year to go to 6th St. in downtown 
Austin to see thousands of young adults parade around in costumes...

To sum up: While I'm enjoying the handling and use of the Leica M240 I'm no longer infatuated with the whole M rangefinder idea. I'll probably sell off all of the M mount lenses and the M240 and dump the cash into a second Q2 body. The main reason is that I hate traveling specifically for photography without a back up camera body. Having a duplicate Q2 or maybe a Q3 would mean the same lens, the same menus, the same batteries, the same handling, etc., etc.

At this point in my amateur career (as opposed to my commercial work) I think the range of 28 to 50mm is more than adequate. Any longer or shorter just seems like a burden. 

When I finally notch my last commercial job I have the idea of getting rid of all the cameras, lenses and lighting I kept for professional work and just enjoying the streamlined pleasure of one nicely designed and realized camera. A dream maybe but why not?



21 comments:

Roland Tanglao said...

i've always been a 100% amateur and resistant to the idea of cropping but this post makes sense. two q3 ssell the rest (for your amateur stuff only!) ! 60megapixels in the Q3 makes cropping more compelling in other words! i'm sure that cropping Q2 pics is fine too!

Richard said...

With the Q3 a 75mm crop would presumably become useful?

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

I would think so. Probably somewhat dependent on your final use but for me it would be fine..

Eric Rose said...

Two Q3's sound like a great idea. Ummmm, I wonder if they make an underwater housing for them??

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Not yet. But maybe soon. Have you found underwater housings for the original Q or Q2?

adam said...

I think I mentioned before but I've started trying to include a 3mm bleed for print when I'm taking pictures now, my favourite lab was having an october sale on panorama's so I got some 36x12" ones, they are very cumbersome to handle but look nice, I went for a 3:1 strip across the centre of some shots from the x-t5, I relented and joined their mailing list to be sent specials when they happen, I always get extra's to make the shipping charge worthwhile, stack of 50 7.5x5"'s this time and some 18 and 16x12"'s, your pics look nice :)

Anonymous said...

Both cameras seem exemplary in your hands. How well do they work for normal photographers?

R.A.

Craig said...

I just got back from Montreal & Quebec, where my Ricoh GR III also proved a nice companion, though with a 24 MP APS-C sensor, the 50mm crop isn't quite as robust.

I swapped a Fuji X100V for this, having owned both the first APS-C GR model (whose body I still like better) and the original 35mm film GR1. Something about the slim discreet size and UI just clicks with me - and I actually used the snap mode to grab some satisfying zone focus shots in Vieux-Quebec.

Still, as great as 28mm is for interiors and crowds, I do miss having a nice 35-50mm "normal" for more considered compositions. The Ricoh GRIIIx would give me a 40mm equivalent with identical UI and handling, but I feel a "system" body with an interchangeable lens mount might be a more flexible companion.

But would I really value that flexibility over, say, the seamless handling consistency and jpeg output of a pair of GRIII/x-es?

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

I really think the days of system cameras are quickly coming to an end. If, for example, you have a GRxxx with a 32-36 megapixel sensor you could probably do some very convincing crops to a 50mm FF angle of view. And having to carry bigger cameras and more stuff is so....over.

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Except for paid work...

JC said...

Because of the way I've always seen things (that is, back a few steps) I wouldn't be interested in a Q camera, but if they ever made a version with a 50mm lens, then I would be -- figuring it would be good out to 85 or so. I wish somebody would make a compact f4 40-85 for either a Z mount or an X mount. That would make me a very happy camp. None of that would be necessary if Panasonic would get off its corporate ass and make a GX8 II with that 25mp sensor they've got in the overly large G9 II. If they did that, I'd buy three bodies, warehouse two and be done with new cameras for life.

Anonymous said...

Haven't looked,,, , yet!

Eric Rose said...

When it's all said and done I love my Panasonic GH5 equipt with an Olympus Pro 12-40 2.8 zoom. Does what I want it to do and isn't all that heavy. I have lusted after one of the S series full frames but just can't make a logical case for it.

Eric

Joe said...


The Olympus Pen-F with its very nice 20MP sensor and a set of 14, 20mm, and 42.5 Panasonic 1.7 primes and maybe the Panasonic 35-100 f/4-5.6 zoom works very well along the same lines.

Very good image quality, even with the variable aperture zoom ( a bit of a hidden gem). The kit is very small and light, but well-built and full-featured. The only down-side for me is the lack of any sort of moisture and dust resistance as it's often used near salt water. I find myself using this outfit regularly despite larger sensor options.

Norm said...

Simple kit, for me, seems better. As it is, a Q2M and M10M with 75mm mounted, used together, have made a perfect pair. The M10M is 40 MP, roughly, and results are wonderful. But then, I’ve never been fond of zooms. That said, if I am grabbing one camera on the way out the door, it’s usually the Q2M. For traveling, Q2M only. Q2 and M10R would provide similarly sized files and flexibility, with the addition of color capability. On the Q2M, focal length (equivalent) of choice for me is 35mm.

Kenneth Voigt said...

I like the first picture

TMJ said...

And then there is the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50mm lens.

Chris DC said...

Hi Kirk:

Thanks for your insights and comparisons of the experience of shooting the Q2 and the M240. I recently returned from a short business trip to Japan where I took along my Sigma FP with its 45mm lens. I also took an old 5cm Nikkor and a 28mm Olympus lens with adapters. The FP with its side mounted removable EVF is about the same size as the M240 and paired very well with the old lenses. It was fun to use but I kept wondering if I'd have a similar experience with an M240 and the shoe mount EVF.

I happened across a used Q2 at a tiny old-school camera store in Japan and help it alongside the FP. It was considerably lighter but seemed comparable to use.


You have both the FP and the Q2 and M240. Can you share your thoughts on how the FP compares regarding the shooting experience? I find the FP a bit quirky but fun and it produces nice images with lots of different lenses.

I love the images you shared. Makes me want to revisit Montreal soon!

Keep up the wonderful blog. We all appreciate it!

CD

Dogman said...

The 28-35-50mm range of focal lengths are nearly perfect for me most of the time. In the past, I never used 28mm. Instead I used a 24mm and I was happy with it. But as I get older (and wiser?) the 28mm better fits my vision. And while I am firmly a member of the Full Frame Fan Club, I am very happy using my Fuji X-Pro cameras and the Fujinon 18-23-35mm ƒ/2 lenses. Each of those small lenses are permanently mounted on their own individual X-Pro2 bodies.

While I like the idea of the "Q" and its three focal length crop, I detest EVFs. I mean I REALLY loathe them. With the X-Pro, I can have real bright frame lines for each lens within the OVF and still have accurate and dependable AF. Now if Leica (or someone else) would build a "Q" with an OVF, shifting bright lines and a variable focal length lens, THAT would be a game changer.

Rene said...

Hi Kirk,

You might enjoy this "36 hours in Montreal" article in today's NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/12/travel/things-to-do-montreal.html

Rene

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Thanks Rene! Appreciate this. KT