Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica Q / T / X Series

Leica Q / T / X Series For the Leica Q, T, X series digital cameras

View Poll Results: Ok with lens corrections on Leica Q?
Yup 100 78.74%
Nope 27 21.26%
Voters: 127. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 06-18-2015   #201
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 65
Posts: 12,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
While Hunter may have been a bit shrill and made a awful lot of posts his basic points stand, whether you share his distaste for distortion or not.

The messenger, annoying fellow, has been shot.

The many comments that "all digital cameras correct distortion" is very quaint, like "all cars emit CO2"

as if....prius or F150, it's all the same.
... well yes, except for those who don't care ... or think that using two technologies to improve the systems output in a smaller package is a good idea, or even just to improve Leica's profit margin and help secure their future ... I should probably put a ? on there I suppose
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2015   #202
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
... well yes, except for those who don't care ... or think that using two technologies to improve the systems output in a smaller package is a good idea, or even just to improve Leica's profit margin and help secure their future ... I should probably put a ? on there I suppose
I'm slowly getting over the initial shock of the great distortion contortion and just trying to enjoy the images so far

It's not too hard.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2015   #203
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 480
I'd rather have less speed and have a better-corrected lens than one of any speed that requires software correction.

It's just lazy, imo. I disable distortion correction on any camera that has it. Luckily I don't have to worry too much as I usually shoot normal focal lengths.

I've been eyeing the Sigma Dp0 however. I wonder how well corrected its lens is optically, before software. Seems pretty amazing. http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigm...stortion-more/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #204
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samouraï View Post
I'd rather have less speed and have a better-corrected lens than one of any speed that requires software correction. It's just lazy, imo. I disable distortion correction on any camera that has it. Luckily I don't have to worry too much as I usually shoot normal focal lengths. ....
Why would you shut it off?

What advantage do you gain?

Can you tell the difference between corrected and uncorrected images without referring to the position of the switch or straight lines near the edge of the frame or do you disable software correction purely on principle?

The human eye can select (automatically!) different sensitivities (call it ISO) for different sections of the retina. Would you, were you able, deselect this also?

Do you switch off anti-skid in a motor vehicle as a matter of principle?

Again, where is the advantage?
__________________
From a Levantine kitchen...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #205
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,469
One advantage would be the frame is not cropped due to barrel/pin cushion distortion correction. But this is a trivial advantage as the crop percentage is quite small unless the distortion is very large. At the same time, I have read posts elsewhere where photographers feel cheated since the entire frame is not available after lens correction.

I would rather have the advantages of smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses with the potential to trade-off higher levels barrel/pincushion distortion and vignetting to achieve other optical performance goals that are much more difficult (or impossible) to correct post acquisition.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #206
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
One advantage would be the frame is not cropped due to barrel/pin cushion distortion correction. But this is a trivial advantage as the crop percentage is quite small unless the distortion is very large.
Apparently the Q really has a 25mm lens that is corrected to somewhere around 28mm... not sure if this is true and it couldn't be a constant because not all corrections for each type of photo are the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #207
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Apparently the Q really has a 25mm lens that is corrected to somewhere around 28mm... not sure if this is true and it couldn't be a constant because not all corrections for each type of photo are the same.
Well, fine. But a rangefinder user would be used to that. As would an SLR user, although to a much lesser degree (TTL viewfinders that purport 100% coverage only do so at specific focal lengths - admittedly the error is, practically speaking, insignificant. This is not to even factor the distortion found in many SLR finders.).

The only time you will have true 100% accuracy across all focal lengths is using live view/evf and I don't know if that is true across all brand's proline cameras. I only know from Nikon and Fuji. Presumably (I don't own a Q and exited from the Leica M system long after going full-truck digital) the Q provides that - true 100% fidelity between the file and the EVF.

So are photographers complaining about a hypothetical loss?
__________________
From a Levantine kitchen...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #208
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscuro View Post
Well, fine. But a rangefinder user would be used to that. As would an SLR user, although to a much lesser degree (TTL viewfinders that purport 100% coverage only do so at specific focal lengths - admittedly the error is, practically speaking, insignificant. This is not to even factor the distortion found in many SLR finders.).

The only time you will have true 100% accuracy across all focal lengths is using live view/evf and I don't know if that is true across all brand's proline cameras. I only know from Nikon and Fuji. Presumably (I don't own a Q and exited from the Leica M system long after going full-truck digital) the Q provides that - true 100% fidelity between the file and the EVF.

So are photographers complaining about a hypothetical loss?
No...I was just stating that Leica apparently took into account the loss of perspective from lens corrections by using a wider lens. It was not a complaint.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #209
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
No...I was just stating that Leica apparently took into account the loss of perspective from lens corrections by using a wider lens. It was not a complaint.
Sorry. I grabbed the wrong post. Should have grabbed Samurai's. I have large thumbs and a small phone. Deepest apologies.

I didn't perceive your post as a complaint. Rather, I think we're in agreement here.

If a photographer objects to the SW correction because it costs a sliver of sensor surface area, and the manufacturer has allotted such a sliver, and adjusted the gross focal length to produce a net focal length post-correction, and the photographer frames the shot using a corrected image in the finder, then what is the hypothetical photographer who is "...not okay with software correction" actually objecting to?

I'll go back to the anti-skid analogy. "I'll turn off anti-skid because it proves that brake system and tire designers are lazy." "Ummm....... "

Or the step-child of that:

"I'll turn off anti-skid because when it's on it makes decisions for me and I don't have as much control." "Ah, no, actually. You have less control over the car with anti-skid off."

It is as if a painter complained about the canvas that wraps around the stretcher before putting a drop of gesso on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2015   #210
swatch
Registered User
 
swatch is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 70
it is a matter of expectation I guess ... many people pay more to buy / use Leica lenses for its image quality from design and build better than other brands ( purchase justification ) and expect Leica keep doing it.

In short, customer's expectation and customer would like to be associated with Leica brand for " quality " as self-image
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2015   #211
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Apparently the Q really has a 25mm lens that is corrected to somewhere around 28mm... not sure if this is true and it couldn't be a constant because not all corrections for each type of photo are the same.
That is very interesting, useful and unique solution to the problem.

Some of us would take comfort in knowing the barrel distortion and vignetting corrections are a small as possible. From a practical point of view pixel peepers will appreciate the oval distortion of pixels in highly corrected regions is also minimized or perhaps eliminated.

I would think vignetting and barrel distortion corrections are constants. The same goes for lateral chromatic aberrations. Color shifts often experienced with some wide-angle M lenses may not be relevant. Since this is a fixed-lens camera the lens optics and sensor micro-lens assembly could be designed to eliminate this artifact.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2015   #212
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
That is very interesting, useful and unique solution to the problem.

....Since this is a fixed-lens camera the lens optics and sensor micro-lens assembly could be designed to eliminate this artifact.
Well that's the point, isn't it? One makes pictures with the camera and one looks at the pictures and decides if one is to continue using the damn thing. At least that's what I would do. "Would" being the operative - I do nearly all of the work with a full-frame Nikon that is now nearly 8 years old or a APS-C Fuji that is at least two years old and have absolutely no need for more of anything. Stuff gets replaced when it breaks.

To extrapolate a conceptualization of a design solution into a hypothetical "acceptable/not acceptable" resolution is to wade into the realm of philosophy. Which given the semantics of the original post, is appropriate.

Caution must be exercised, however; no system is perfect.

You want best resolution? Shoot large format.
You want portability? Shoot small format.
Want accurate colour? Transparency under tungsten or digital.
Want best dynamic range? Shoot black and white.
Want it all? Forget cameras.

And on and on.

And, in contravention of the thrust of the original poster's question no camera can be evaluated by simply evaluating a sub-process. It is similar to generalizing a community through the behaviour of one member. It actually can't be done.

The Q occupies a niche. If that niche fits a particular photographer, great. If not....

I'd be willing to bet that the most interesting work will not be produced by the individual agonizing over whether software corrections are acceptable and then finally coming down on the "acceptable, yes" side.

It'll likely be produced by the individual who has an interesting view and likes a 28mm-equivalent field of view. In which case, virtually nobody will be able to tell, unless they look at EXIF data, if it was shot with a M9, a D3, a Q, or a m4/3 camera with a 14mm on it.

So I suppose I'm questioning the question.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2015   #213
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,802
Anyone get one of these lately?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2015   #214
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by codester80 View Post
Nobody gives a hoot about the corners of an image.
Kasimir Malevich cared.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2015   #215
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
Kasimir Malevich cared.
He photographed?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2015   #216
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Anyone get one of these lately?
Yes, indeed and I also don't care about the corners.
What is in focus is stunning and what is oof is beautifully soft and pleasing.

Just fooling around in the dark last night ...
Minimal processing in LR6, sharpening off





__________________
Klaus
You have to be there !
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2015   #217
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,802
Cool, glad you like it so far Klaus. You'll have to bring it to the next meet-up you can attend.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2016   #218
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,469
Lovely photographs Klaus.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-28-2016   #219
Sumolux
Registered User
 
Sumolux's Avatar
 
Sumolux is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 45
Bravo Oscura,
You hit the nail on the head of this discussion!
  Reply With Quote

Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?
Old 05-29-2016   #220
asimplefarmer
Registered User
 
asimplefarmer's Avatar
 
asimplefarmer is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 24
Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?

I like being able to just edit and post my photos on the go. One less thing to do.
__________________
================================
Website
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2017   #221
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,031
24 Nikkor has fuzzy corners on full frame until almost F8. t can be used on APS C without issues.

24 3.8 Elmar is sharp into the corners wide open. But is costly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #222
djonesii
Registered User
 
djonesii is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 387
Have Q now, pretty happy with the lens. While it may not be up to 35 asph lux, it's results are better than the best of my Fuji lenses. At the used price, the Q was still not a bargain, but to get that last bit of optical quality, an extra 1 or 2 k$ would break the del for me.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 16:36.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.