Digital Zoom Part II: The crop-to-zoom debate continues as Leica Q3 adds yet another telephoto frame

The Leica Q2 introduced a crop-to-zoom frame line system which actually encouraged owners to compose at 35mm, 50mm and 75mm equivalents. It wasn’t a unique approach because Ricoh, for one manufacturer, has incorporated a similar concept in the GR range for many years.

However, the crop-to-zoom feature of the Leica Q3 has caused a stack of controversy here at Macfilos. Is it worth digital cropping, or should you just go out and buy a camera with a zoom lens and enjoy the benefit of the full resolution of the sensor combined with the characteristics of a longer lens? Well, it’s not as simple as that.

The high-resolution 47mm sensor was the catalyst for the introduction of the crop-to-zoom feature on the Q2, and Leica clearly believed that such crops were viable.

The message from the factory was that the lens and sensor combination is good enough to produce acceptable cropped images, even to 75mm equivalence at a pinch.

Back in the day of point-and-shoot compacts, crop-to-zoom was already a selling point, if a dubious one that didn’t fool experienced photographers. But we’ve come a long way in sensor technology and resolution since then. Modern high-resolution sensors are, in some cases, overkill and digital zoom is back as a viable option.

In a companion article, Keith James takes a close look at those digital zooming options offered by the Q2.

Leica Q3

With the Leica Q3, the 25 per cent increase in resolution to 60 megapixels has encouraged the factory to add a 90mm crop function to the established 35, 50 and 75mm choices. This is sensible. A 90mm-equivalent crop on the Q3 can be compared directly to a 75mm crop on the old Q2.

And at more modest crops, the opportunities are clear. A 35mm-equivalent image from the Q3 offers a resolution of 39MP compared with 30MP at 35mm on the Q2. Yet these are all high-resolution images compared with those from cameras of only two or three years ago, and the 18.9 MP size of a 50mm crop from the Q3 isn’t far behind the 24MP resolution of many modern cameras, including the Leica SL2-S. Let’s not forget, too, that 18MP was the resolution of the M9 in 2009, and many photographers still buy that camera and are impressed by the results.

Ground rules

In the examples in this article, you can check samples of cropped images and compare them with the base 28mm. But first, let’s establish the ground rules. No one (least of all Leica) is suggesting that a 90mm crop from the Q3 will beat a picture taken with a good 90mm prime or a quality zoom lens, given equivalent sensor size and density.

Nor is anyone proposing that a 28mm lens mimics the characteristics of a 90mm lens. However dramatic the crop, it’s still taken through a 28mm lens with the same generous depth of field, the same quality of bokeh and the perspective of a wide-angle lens.

No one would buy a camera with a fixed wide-angle lens as an alternative to an interchangeable lens camera with longer lenses, whether prime or zoom. And no one I can think of would choose the Q3 simply because it offers a convenient paint-by-numbers framework for longer shots. The Q3 is bought for its qualities as a 28mm compact camera with superb output. The crop-to-zoom feature is just a bit of icing on the cake.

Some even regard the crop-to-zoom feature of the Q3 as a gimmick, saying the crops are best applied in post-processing. They have a point.

But the only question is…

Ignoring the technical arguments and the suitability of alternative cameras and lenses, the only valid question is whether or not crop-to-zoom images from the new 60MP sensor combined with the 28mm f/1.7 Summilux (which hasn’t changed since the Q in 2015) are usable. Has digital cropping come of age in the era of 60-plus megapixels?

I’ll put my cards on the table now. I believe that the crop function on the Q3 is fun and useful on occasion, even though it is nothing you can’t do in post-processing. Even with a crop to 90mm equivalence, there is sufficient detail to warrant an A4 print. For viewing on an iPhone, iPad or modest computer monitor (such as my 27in Apple Studio screen), a 90mm crop is acceptable, if not as good as you would expect from a 90mm prime or zoom lens addressing the same sensor.

However, many Q3 owners will be happy to crop routinely to 35mm and 50mm. In this respect, the Q3 is comparable to a rangefinder with the classic Tri-Elmar MATE, but much faster at f/1.7 instead of f/4. These crops are absolutely usable. The only controversy lies in whether it’s just a gimmick for Leica to introduce 75mm and 90mm frame lines.

All this is common sense. But see what the Q3 can produce and decide for yourself. All the examples are out-of-camera JPGs set to the Q3’s Vivid mode. While I would normally work from DNG files, using unprocessed JPGs ensures a level playing field.

Frame lines

As I touched on earlier, Ricoh and Leica adopt different approaches to crop composing. The Ricoh GRIII and GRIIIx allow the user to see the full-size cropped image on the screen.

Leica’s choice is based, very sensibly, on the historic concept of rangefinder frame lines. You see the frame lines on the screen or in the viewfinder while viewing the surrounding action on the outside. As you toggle the crops, using one of the function buttons, the 28mm image continues to occupy the full screen or viewfinder, but the crop lines change to designate the view at the four longer equivalents.

All frames feature a small focal-length number in the bottom right-hand corner, and this is a big help when getting used to the system. Composition comes naturally. I like the ability to see outside the frame, as with the rangefinder when using 35mm or longer lenses.

For anyone who has used rangefinders in the past, the Q3’s frame-line crop feature is fun and oddly satisfying.

There have been calls for Leica to adopt the Ricoh approach of crops occupying the full screen. But if they did, it should be an option. I prefer the frame-line method and wouldn’t want to see it disappear.

Crop resolutions

This table shows the effective resolution of images from the Leica Q2 and Q3. With heavier crops, however, you really do need the maximum resolution you can achieve, 47MP on the Q2 and 60MP on the Q3

What happens when you crop in-camera? Your JPGs will be reduced in size, and you don’t have the option of second thoughts. DNG files, however, while appearing initially as crops in post-processing software, are capable of being resized or returned to the full-size image (depending on the camera’s resolution setting). If you are planning on trying crop-to-zoom, it’s a good idea to save DNG files as well.

Leica’s triple-resolution technology (first seen on the M11) adds the ability to set three distinct levels of DNG resolution — 60MP, 36MP and 18MP. As with any other camera, of course, you can lower the JPG resolution. Leica offers large, medium and small JPG resolutions which mimic the 60/36/18 values of the triple-resolution DNG sizes. In theory, then, you can use the crop-to-zoom facility when specifying lower-resolution DNGs or JPGs, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

There seems to be little sense in buying a camera with a 60MP sensor and then reducing the resolution, presumably just to optimise storage space. These days storage is cheap, and a far better way to cut down on storage is ruthlessly to cull images that you are never going to use.

Image quality

The images you see here, even when enlarged in LightBox, are compressed to under 500KB, which is the general standard for uploading to the Macfilos. So I would caution against too much pixel peeping; you would need to view the originals at full resolution. But the overall impression is still perfectly acceptable.

I have no hesitation in using 35mm or 50mm crops from the Q3. In that sense, the Q3 successfully replicates three primes. Crops to 75mm and 90mm are less convincing but nonetheless usable. If you are already a Q2 or Q3 owner, I’d recommend you give the crop-to-zoom facility a spin. You have nothing to lose, provided you save full-size DNGs

Crop contest at London’s Red Dot Cameras. Ivor Cooper (left) and Frank Dabba-Smith contemplate a set of A2 prints of images taken by Jonathan Slack at all the Q3 zoom reference points of 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90mm (Image iPhone 14 Pro)

To crop or not to crop…

Let us know what you think. Forget comparisons with other cameras and lenses. Given that you own the Q3, is it worth cropping images, or is it a complete waste of time? Feel free to express your opinions here, or in the third post in the series, which provides links both to this article and a related article from Keith James.

In preparation for the discussion, I have my hard hat at the ready…




17 COMMENTS

  1. “it’s still taken through a 28mm lens with the same generous depth of field, the same quality of bokeh and the perspective of a wide-angle lens.”

    This is true only for depth of field and bokeh but not for perspective. Perspective has nothing to do with focal length and it depends only from distance camera subject. If you take 2 picture one with a 28mm and one with a 50mm with the same aperture from the same distance and on your PC you cut the picture taken with the 28mm to emulate the field of the one taken with the 50mm the only difference will be in DOF and of course in resolution but nothing will change in perspective!

  2. I have Q3 and haven’t tried Q3. Regarding cropping, remember that the Leica Q3 measures the light differently at the different 28-35-50-75-90 mm. An example from my assignment yesterday from a scene. 3 politicians had to debate politics. 28 mm shows the audience and the stage. 75mm and 90mm show the scene. When setting cropping to record only the scene (on which there is spotlight) change the light metering. It is not completely unimportant.

  3. Nice article by the way. I love my Q3 – I have no sound on my videos though. There is a fault in the mate and it must now be sent in for repair, but will be replaced – as I hope – or repaired.

  4. I think one big point missed in doing the crops is the fact that the composition is done for those crops. That alone to me is reason enough to “get a 60MP camera only to crop it” particularly when it’s a P&S with a fixed lens.

    Also the bigger resolution makes several crops all the more legit.

  5. If equipment’s the subject, then there’s plenty to discuss and argue about, whether to crop or not to crop. With heavy heart, recently swapped a Leica M6 Classic, and a handful of prime Leica M lenses, for a Q2, for no other reason than that, 28 years on, critical focus in the viewfinder’s focus patch is not so easy with old eyes. The Q2, and surely the Q3 too, solve that problem, the art of photography revived. If, however, art and effect are the issue, then surely it’s the composition that’s drawing the eye but that will depend on the subject: cars and landscape; near or far? From the article’s sample images, the 90mm crops of yellow MG (particularly), and the Caterham cars, win hands down, they draw the eye to detail. That wouldn’t necessarily be true of a landscape, or street capture, where 28mm would be the way to go. Nobody asked van Gogh how many bristles he had in his brushes, or Capa whether his viewfinder patch was faulty in Normandy? The Qs are just fine, their makers to be congratulated on and thanked for providing something for everyone. Press only the buttons you need. Enjoy the result. Viewers don’t care how it was arrived at, only how it affects them.

  6. I have yet to own a high resolution camera, my previous Nikon Df and D-Lux Type 109 were 16 and 12.8 MP respectively. Even on my current 24 MP CL, I haven’t used the digital crop function yet. Part of the reason is I prefer to do any cropping during post processing instead, since that is when I decide how the image will look. Personally, I think cropping or digital zooming is just a tool to make photography more flexible and fun. As long as you are aware of its resolution limitations and optical perspective, there is nothing “unethical” about it. The Q3 is a very unique and intriguing camera, enough to make me briefly think should I trade in my CL for it. However, not being able to change lenses is a deal breaker for me. With that being said, I can see why many people love the Q2 and Q3. If Leica decides to make an interchangeable lens Q or a M with EVF, that might be the time for me to finally upgrade.

    Yours Truly,

  7. I have a Q2 sitting on a shelf, perhaps the “Q” stands for Queen… I don’t know.

    Anyway, as a preference, when I nip out for my daily exercise, I usually take my Sigma DP3, which is so light, I don’t even know I am carrying it, and since I cracked the left side of my hip, carrying a camera with a heavy chunk of glass is not so practical as the Sigma. The auto-focus works well and I am happy as a pig in muck.

    One last thing (from me), If I do manage to fall over again, at least I only risk the chance of writing off a £300 camera, rather than £3K, which would be a snip on the used market, to say nothing of the near £5.5K for the new Q3.

  8. Both articles could not have been better timed for me! The Copenhagen Leica Store has been offering individual hours with the Q3, and my time is tomorrow. In addition, I have the specific aim of trying out the crop function – although I prefer what Jean Perenet says about Ricoh’s display. So, another compare and contrast exercise coming up!

    • I am sure the virtues of frame-line versus full-screen will give us all a lot to think about. I’ve now tried both options (Ricoh and Q2/3), and, as I said in the article, I think I prefer the frameline solution. It appeals to the M in me. But everyone’s view is different. It would be good if Leica could offer an alternative full-screen view so we can make like-for-like comparisons, but I believe the frame line concept is something they use as a marketing tool, and it fits in very well with the traditions of the company, suggesting the Q3 is a sort of autofocus M. See what you think and let us know.

  9. I use the crop mode when I need it on the Gr. I prefer the Ricoh display of the cropped image to the Q “à la M frame lines” but that’s personal convenience as I had the opportunity to try the Q at a Leica workshop in Le Havre.

  10. I used the cropping function on my X100V to switch from 35mm to 50mm, or 75mm when shooting portraits. This way you are forced to re-frame and step back from the model, avoiding the wide-angle distortion caused by the 35mm lens (on APS-C it is actually a 23mm lens).
    I realise that other properties of the lens such as compression and perspective remain the same. But that doesn’t necessarily matter if you want to include the surroundings anyway.
    I’m really looking forward to getting a Q3 to take advantage of the high-resolution sensor and its low-light capabilities.

  11. To crop or not to crop. To each their own I would say. On the Leica Q itself: 1) Of the 11 Leica bodies that I have bought to date the (original) Leica Q was (so far) the only one that I sold. Clearly for me the Leica Q was not the perfect travel camera, otherwise I would have kept it 2) I personally did not find the Leica Q compact. 3) I also never warmed up to the rendering of the lens. Of all Leica lenses I owned I feel the Summilux 28mm f/1.7 was probably the least organic. As always YMMV.

  12. My core focal length is 50mm. Hence, I would be throwing out a lot of pixels on a very expensive camera. I would love to be able to use a 50mm and crop to up to 90mm. I tried the Q but the 28mm focal length was way to wide for most of my images. The Q3 is a perfect camera for those who do a lot of wide angle photography. Maybe they could do one with 21mm that crops and make at least one person happy.😂

  13. I am not a Leica man, so do I dare post? [:-)

    I used digital zoom on my relatively low resolution (compared to today’s Leicas) 16 MP Fujifilm X70 when traveling, as a matter of convenience. Because the camera makes a great compact travel camera. I don’t think I ever used optical zoom on my Fujifilm X100F, because I could add the supplemental lenses.

    I have since moved on from Fujis to Nikon Dfs, with a stable of lenses both AF and MF. I definitely prefer optical zoom and changing primes to digital zooming. Since I shot Nikon F2s and Nikkormats for 40 years, I feel like I have come home.

    So I suppose that puts me in the purist camp.

    • I have Q3 and haven’t tried Q3. Regarding cropping, remember that the Leica Q3 measures the light differently at the different 28-35-50-75-90 mm. An example from my assignment yesterday from a scene. 3 politicians had to debate politics. 28 mm shows the audience and the stage. 75mm and 90mm show the scene. When setting cropping to record only the scene (on which there is spot light) change the light metering. It is not completely unimportant.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here