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 97 78.86%
Nope 26 21.14%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 06-12-2015   #41
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,548
Yeah, gotta agree with "Oh-well" ... since all of my cameras do it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-12-2015   #42
giellaleafapmu
Registered User
 
giellaleafapmu is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 887
Don't get my answer like an attempt to claim some superior skill in photography but I would say that if anybody watching a picture I got, from professionally taken to family snaps, tells me either that they would like the image if only it was slightly sharper at a corner or if it didn't have some super small fringe visible only at 200% view on a calibrated screen, I'd rather delete my picture. The image should "deliver" what you try to communicate (even if maybe it is just a plain shot of a hotel reception for a brochure), not be interesting for it sharpness or lack of it. In conclusion: I don't care, I don't think I will buy the Q right away but definitively this is a no issue and it wouldn't be if the camera didn't have correction. However, it seems that electronic correction should help keeping prices down.

GLF
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1808'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-12-2015   #43
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Wow!

The hardware directs light to the sensor, after that the software takes over.

Digital photography is all about software manipulation.

It is the output that counts.

There is still film, which is all about chemical manipulation.
You left two modeling steps out.

The sensor assembly models the light spatial light amplitudes... a state of nature. The result is analog data (DC voltages from all the sensor sites). The modeling step requires no software at all (except to to turn the sensor on and off). As the difference between the model and the data decreases, the image quality (fidelity) increases. Minimizing this difference requires both design and manufacturing excellence.

The analog-digital converter models the analog signals from the from the sensor. The is a hybrid event, so software (on-chip firmware) can have a significant impact. But even the most excellent ADC is fundamentally flawed. Representing a continuous state of nature as a non-continuous phenomenon is inherently flawed. Fortunately the flaws are well understood so their effects can be minimized and software is the tool of choice.

Software lens corrections are similar since the quality of the final rendering also depends a great deal on quality of the modeling.
__________________
"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 06-12-2015   #44
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avotius View Post
Well it seems the masses have spoken and a majority of people are ok with such lens corrections but it seems there are still many to whom it is less than desirable.

Just curious, does anyone on the "technical purity" side of the fence find it a bit odd that Leica, the company that likes to prop itself up on its technical mastery went in this direction?
It is not the least bit odd.

Technical mastery in film photography equipment is entirely different from technical mastery in digital photography. The engineering and manufacturing requirements to achieve mastery have little in common.

Even optics design is inherently different. Film is practically insensitive to the light rays' angles. The opposite holds for sensor assemblies. This is how come Leica (and other brands) went to the effort of designing the lens optics and the sensor assembly micro-lens array optics as a matched pair. This is one example of technical mastery in digital imaging.
__________________
"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 06-15-2015   #45
jlindstrom
Registered User
 
jlindstrom is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 40
Posts: 68
Why would anyone care? If results are outstanding, then why does it matter how they were achieved? In the end only results matter... firmware corrections to optical issues are just means to an end - wether technical design requirements or resulting picture from the photo system.

//Juha
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #46
rulnacco
Registered User
 
rulnacco is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 113
Who pays attention to the extreme corners of photos anyway?

And if you do...why? (I mean, there may be logical reasons--but if you're really all in a worry about that, isn't there a chance you're missing the wonderful forest for not just the trees but perhaps rather the shrubs under the trees?)
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #47
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Wow!

The hardware directs light to the sensor, after that the software takes over.

Digital photography is all about software manipulation.

It is the output that counts.

There is still film, which is all about chemical manipulation.
And under the enlarger.. There is dodge and burn

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #48
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNG View Post
Yeah, but unless it's corrected in JPG mode, they should of gone old school, and correct it better optically...

But, f/1.7 is a lot of glass...

Q?
How is the Leica 28mm/2 on a film camera as far as distortion?
The glass is tad smaller being f/2, not f/1.7
These days doesn't the raw file provide correction info to the photo sw or is it all done via can info within the sw?

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #49
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,189
I'm ok w/ it.. Whatever it takes to keep cost down and provide a good product.

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #50
maitani
Registered User
 
maitani's Avatar
 
maitani is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 750
I would be bothered if it was a system camera as lens 'adapt-a-holic' i'd hate
to see such an expensive lens perform mediocre on other systems but as-a-fix-lens camera it is.. digital lens correction makes sense and i'd be fine with it.

played with one, really a good camera from leica, they seem to have put a big
R&D effort into this one,

like:
-silent shutter
-speed
-leightweight
-finder
-the close focus feature is neat, when you tilt the lens to macro mode, the scale adapts to close focus
-iq seems to be excellent
-user interface is excellent
-framelines in 'zoom-crop' mode

dislike
-no ovf
-expensive
-too leightweight? (plastic.. elements) but then i like heavy and haptics...
-lens is plastic, (i expected aluminium at least...)

overall extremely positive, i guess they will sell tons of them, i can see this as the perfect camera if you're an analogue shooter and want 1 (one) modern digital camera.

all that said, i might buy one at 1500 or so , 2 years from now, i wouldn't dish 5k for it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #51
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,222
Talking

Leica told everyone about the "correction".
What is the problem?
If Leica had remained silent?
I certainly have no idea what happens to the image, as it passes thru a lens to a sensor,later made as RAW or JPEG.
I don't care.
I wish my small digitals had "Distortion" corrections..
Possibly they have, but not enough!
3 reviews and all this "picky" nonsense.
Not one person has mentioned anything about flash!!
A shutter made for a flash(Fill-In).
That to me is a bad idea, no flash.

I hate to say it but a very corrected lens, entails huge problems,
of manufacture and assembly, as Leica does(did?).
See cost of a Special 50mm lens, that with all that, has flare..
Look at price.
Canon for the EOS released a new 50mm lens for $120.
I mentioned a long time ago, but Canon in the AE-1(1979?),
had passed Leica in technology and adaption, of very modern assembly methods.

I use cameras and lenses.
If I was good enough, I would get basic!
Sally Mann basic.
Make one's plates and contact prints..
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #52
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 7,916
Interesting question I suppose. But not more than an exercise in futility.

Purist? Get rid of Photoshop, Lightroom, etc and see how you like the photo.
Jeez, the bloody camera is a computer doing what it does. The image is manipulated and corrected no matter what...Then the photographer manipulates the image anyway. I doubt that anyone really frets about THAT! So the "corrections" are built in with software. Can you tell which final photo does or does not have software corrections?

The image is an illusion anyway.

IMO, life is too short. I would rather enjoy taking pictures with whatever camera I enjoy.
__________________
Peace, Love and Happiness...



Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #53
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
 
Ken Ford's Avatar
 
Ken Ford is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suburban Chicago, IL USA
Age: 54
Posts: 2,838
No problem with it at all. If you're so orthodox that it bothers you enough to avoid the Q, you should probably be shooting a 4x5 or 8x10 instead of digital or even 35mm film.
__________________
"If you can control yourself and just loathe us quietly from a distance then by all means stay." - Joe

Leica: M-P Typ 240 - M6 - Leicavit M - RapidWinder - Motor M - 21 Super-Elmar - 28 Ultron - 35 Summicron ASPH - 40 Summicron - 75 APO-Summicron ASPH - 75 Summarit-M - 75 Color-Heliar - 90 Elmar-C
Nikon: S2 - S3 2000 - 35/2.5 - 50/2 - 50/1.4 Millennium - 105/2.5 - 135/3.4
X-Pro1, X-M1, X100s, NEX-7, dp0 Quattro, N1V1, N1V2, oodles of other stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #54
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfogiel View Post
My Summicron 28mm has 1% distortion and it costs 3800 USD new by itself. So, for 300 USD more you are getting 1/3rd stop more speed,no distortion and a camera body, but it is a fudge, so - what do you prefer?
This is the point. When I first saw the Q and read some early breathless reviews, I mistakenly came to the conclusion the lens was in the League of the 28 Cron, which is fast, fairly small, and has 1% distortion.

Now after seeing lots of samples it's obvious there is no comparison. We are not taking about slight distortion, without correction it's pretty huge. Corners and edges are effected by correction.

If you like very clean landscapes or architecture, the Q is not in the same league as the M9 and 28cron, though of course it can do high ISO much better, and on the street it may be hard to see a downside.

So it's a very cool camera, but I would prefer a superior optical design.

BTW a 28 cron is pretty easy to find these days for 2600 or even less.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #55
Black
Photographer.
 
Black's Avatar
 
Black is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford View Post
No problem with it at all. If you're so orthodox that it bothers you enough to avoid the Q, you should probably be shooting a 4x5 or 8x10 instead of digital or even 35mm film.
This. And not only that, devving and printing yourself. And further more, creating your own emulsions using Rollei Black Magic or raw chemicals.

Purist, schmurist.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #56
codester80
A Touch of Light
 
codester80's Avatar
 
codester80 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 118
All this navel gazing is a case of never being happy in life. If you're worried about 1% distortion in the corners of an image you have much more to be worried about. Nobody gives a hoot about the corners of an image. I find discussions like this cause me to shake my head and wonder how some people make it through life. If I was this concerned and nit picky about everything I would have slit my wrists long ago or jumped off a bridge, or at least gouged out my eyes so I would never be disappointed with a visual image that was 100% distortion free.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #57
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by codester80 View Post
All this navel gazing is a case of never being happy in life. If you're worried about 1% distortion in the corners of an image you have much more to be worried about. Nobody gives a hoot about the corners of an image. I find discussions like this cause me to shake my head and wonder how some people make it through life. If I was this concerned and nit picky about everything I would have slit my wrists long ago or jumped off a bridge, or at least gouged out my eyes so I would never be disappointed with a visual image that was 100% distortion free.

Well said ...
I`m just pleased that I haven`t got the problem .
For me the challenge is the content.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #58
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black View Post
This. And not only that, devving and printing yourself. And further more, creating your own emulsions using Rollei Black Magic or raw chemicals.

Purist, schmurist.
Chris,

I'd love to play in your studio.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #59
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by codester80 View Post
All this navel gazing is a case of never being happy in life. If you're worried about 1% distortion in the corners of an image you have much more to be worried about. Nobody gives a hoot about the corners of an image. I find discussions like this cause me to shake my head and wonder how some people make it through life.
I guess Mandler and all the many other lens designers of the past and present should have saved all the time and effort to get it right LOL

Puts weighs in:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/6...9a41ca9-8.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #60
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,189
When Dr. Mandler was doing his work, there was no options like this available. Fast forward to the present, there are many choices to the end goal. I suspect a purist design for a 28f1.7 would not only be more expensive but a lot bigger as well..

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #61
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black View Post
The RX1 has similar corrective software in camera and works very well. What does it really matter. I mean really?
em? no it doesn't ... anyway, many seem to confuse distortion with the normal planar projection as it is ... and I've not had much luck explaining the difference to them
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



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

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #62
Black
Photographer.
 
Black's Avatar
 
Black is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Chris,

I'd love to play in your studio.

Cal
Cal,

I think I made the mistake of claiming to be a purist or something similar, once. Once. Got called out on it and I'll never do it again.

Its good to call people out on such matters. Character building and all that
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #63
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryLH View Post
When Dr. Mandler was doing his work, there was no options like this available. Fast forward to the present, there are many choices to the end goal. I suspect a purist design for a 28f1.7 would not only be more expensive but a lot bigger as well..

Gary
In a forum which loves film so much I find the "who cares, good enough" attitude refreshing, if curious.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #64
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
In a forum which loves film so much I find the "who cares, good enough" attitude refreshing, if curious.
Lol
Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #65
Black
Photographer.
 
Black's Avatar
 
Black is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
em? no it doesn't ...
Doesn't have lens distortion compensation, Stewart?
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #66
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,834
The images from the "Q" look pretty good to me and I own a 28 Cron (most used lens). All of my cameras utilize MF lenses, even my Nikon D3X, so autofocus would be new to me. The slight shutter delay can't be as bad as the Contax T3 I found by almost stepping on it in an abandoned part of Brooklyn where I use to live.

One of the reasons I own so many cameras is to keep me fresh.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #67
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by codester80 View Post
All this navel gazing is a case of never being happy in life. If you're worried about 1% distortion in the corners of an image you have much more to be worried about. Nobody gives a hoot about the corners of an image. I find discussions like this cause me to shake my head and wonder how some people make it through life. If I was this concerned and nit picky about everything I would have slit my wrists long ago or jumped off a bridge, or at least gouged out my eyes so I would never be disappointed with a visual image that was 100% distortion free.
$4000 for a camera with a poorly designed lens. What a joke. It might be understandable if there were some benefit for the end user. Many lenses need optical correction when they are designed to be extremely small. That's a benefit for the end user.

Clearly Leica is skimping on manufacturing costs buy not correcting for the distortion. This is a test case. If successful, we'll see more and more manufacturers simply designing poorer lenses, at the same or higher cost, and then correcting for these poor designs in the digital realm.

This is a very very bad trend IMO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #68
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
This is a test case. <snip>

This is a very very bad trend IMO.
Nope, not a test case at all. The cat is already well and truly out of the bag when it comes to in-camera correction. All the big name camera manufacturers have been doing it for some time. Even Leica is already doing it with its 6-bit coding on M-mount lenses. The camera reads the 6-bit coding so it knows what in-camera corrections to perform for the attached lens. Ain't no stopping it now, and it certainly doesn't mean the lens was poorly designed.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #69
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
Nope, not a test case at all. The cat is already well and truly out of the bag when it comes to in-camera correction. All the big name camera manufacturers have been doing it for some time. Even Leica is already doing it with its 6-bit coding on M-mount lenses. The camera reads the 6-bit coding so it knows what in-camera corrections to perform for the attached lens. Ain't no stopping it now, and it certainly doesn't mean the lens was poorly designed.
No, that's incorrect. Most lenses that need lens correction are either el-cheapo lenses, or designed for some other advantage like very small size.

Leica is doing it just to save on their own costs. Nothing more.

The lens is absolutely poorly designed. That's a fact. Who here would use this lens without any assistance from software?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #70
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post
em? no it doesn't ... anyway, many seem to confuse distortion with the normal planar projection as it is ... and I've not had much luck explaining the difference to them
Sony RX1 does apply distortion correction. The barrel distortion is very noticeable without the correction. You can choose to not apply it, which can be useful with certain subjects.

I was hoping the Leica Q would also allow not applying the correction. From some of the images I have seen since, it seems the correction is truly an integral part of the system as the images otherwise show black corners. Even the image circle is thus optimized with the software correction in mind. Given this, I have no problem this option is not meant to be available to the user. (On the Sony camera, you do not get black corners.)

I have never bothered to compare the corners of the uncorrected and corrected RX1R image in the same file, although I have meant to do it. The corners of the corrected image have certainly been good enough for me.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #71
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
No, that's incorrect. Most lenses that need lens correction are either el-cheapo lenses, or designed for some other advantage like very small size.

Leica is doing it just to save on their own costs. Nothing more.

The lens is absolutely poorly designed. That's a fact. Who here would use this lens without any assistance from software?
My Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH for FourThirds SLR cameras, hardly small, hardly cheap, and a very very high quality performer, included lens correction metadata injected into the raw files when used on a Panasonic G1.

Results with a raw processor that honored the lens correction meant that all lateral chromatic aberration was completely eliminated even wide open (a small amount was visible wide open without the correction applied) and the entire image has a crisper, cleaner rendering feel. A small amount of barrel distortion was also corrected.

Lens correction is used on multimillion dollar space telescope camera lenses as well as by criminal investigation and intelligence agencies to improve the quality of the data they collect. On that basis, I'd say there's plenty of merit to be had from applying modern technology to the problems of best imaging.

A lens designed to be used with an embedded correction algorithm may well be designed to have more simple, easily corrected aberrations in order that there are fewer complex, difficult to remove aberrations, the end result being better overall performance.

So to say "The lens is absolutely poorly designed. That's a fact. ..." when it obviously produces lovely results from the work posted by every reviewer and owner so far is quite incorrect, IMO, at the very least.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #72
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
The lens is absolutely poorly designed. That's a fact.
On the contrary, I strongly suspect it's quite well designed, though probably with design parameters you would not have chosen or don't prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Who here would use this lens without any assistance from software?
But I think that's probably the point: it was designed to be used with the assistace of software correction, so it isn't intended to be used without that assistance. If that matters to you then I guess it matters. I think it would matter to me if it were an interchangable lens, especially if I wished to use it on both film and digital bodies or on camera bodies from different manufacturers. On a fixed-lens camera it doesn't bother me so much - especially a camera I'm unlikely to buy (for reasons quite other than the presence or absence of lens distortions and software corrections).


...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #73
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfunnell View Post
On the contrary, I strongly suspect it's quite well designed, though probably with design parameters you would not have chosen or don't prefer.
Well designed? Who wants distortion? It's as if a Ferrari were designed to have one of the front tires out of alignment, but with an auxiliary 5th tire available to correct this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfunnell View Post
But I think that's probably the point: it was designed to be used with the assistace of software correction, so it isn't intended to be used without that assistance.
I agree with you here, but tell me, where is the benefit to the customer for having this poorly designed lens attached to the camera that needs software help? How do you, me, or anyone benefit from this? What are you paying $4000 for in this case? You cannot look at this lens and admire its design because it is in fact loaded with distortion that needs software correction.

If this camera were $2000, then perhaps my objections would fade away. It's an entirely different scenario of Leica is producing a substandard lens that needs software correction in order to lower their costs and pass it on to the end user. This I can get behind.

What's next, artificially made bokeh? Imagine buying a 50mm f/1.4 where all the bokeh is made from software. We can laugh at it now, but such software already exists. It looks awful or at least fake today but it wont stay that way forever. Will you or anyone else be interested in a $4000 50mm lens (which is really a ho hum design) but has great software correction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfunnell View Post
If that matters to you then I guess it matters. I think it would matter to me if it were an interchangable lens, especially if I wished to use it on both film and digital bodies or on camera bodies from different manufacturers. On a fixed-lens camera it doesn't bother me so much - especially a camera I'm unlikely to buy (for reasons quite other than the presence or absence of lens distortions and software corrections).


...Mike
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #74
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is online now
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Well designed? Who wants distortion? It's as if a Ferrari were designed to have one of the front tires out of alignment, but with an auxiliary 5th tire available to correct this.


I agree with you here, but tell me, where is the benefit to the customer for having this poorly designed lens attached to the camera that needs software help? How do you, me, or anyone benefit from this? What are you paying $4000 for in this case? You cannot look at this lens and admire its design because it is in fact loaded with distortion that needs software correction.

If this camera were $2000, then perhaps my objections would fade away. It's an entirely different scenario of Leica is producing a substandard lens that needs software correction in order to lower their costs and pass it on to the end user. This I can get behind.

What's next, artificially made bokeh? Imagine buying a 50mm f/1.4 where all the bokeh is made from software. We can laugh at it now, but such software already exists. It looks awful or at least fake today but it wont stay that way forever. Will you or anyone else be interested in a $4000 50mm lens (which is really a ho hum design) but has great software correction?

The benefit is most certainly having a lens with higher speed in a smaller package than it would be if designed for optical perfection without software correction.
Have you taken a look at the Zeiss Otus or Sigma Art lenses? Not exactly compact .

The Q having a fixed lens and therefore dedicated sensor, I prefer a smaller faster lens with SW correction to a perfect optical path in a much larger and unwieldy package.
It's the final output I want to see be perfect.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #75
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
It's as if a Ferrari were designed to have one of the front tires out of alignment, but with an auxiliary 5th tire available to correct this.
Sounds like an odd design for a motor car, though it would invite the question "but how does it drive?" If it drives well, perhaps better than more traditional designs at the price-point, the odd design might be justified. However this, from earlier in the thread, sounds closer to my guess regarding the motivation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
A lens designed to be used with an embedded correction algorithm may well be designed to have more simple, easily corrected aberrations in order that there are fewer complex, difficult to remove aberrations, the end result being better overall performance.
It's guesswork on my part but they seem to have made a rather wide aperture lens for its focal length and size. The use of software correction may be part of what enables that. I'm neither jumping for joy nor recoiling in horror. I am interested in what they've achieved in terms of the sample photographs I've seen, despite having no interest in buying the camera for myself.

...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #76
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
I agree with you here, but tell me, where is the benefit to the customer for having this poorly designed lens attached to the camera that needs software help? How do you, me, or anyone benefit from this? What are you paying $4000 for in this case? You cannot look at this lens and admire its design because it is in fact loaded with distortion that needs software correction.
You're dramatically oversimplifying. With the exception of a few lens designs at certain focal lengths all lenses have distortion. Some have more, others have less, and generally the less distortion a lens has the more elements it must have and the larger and slower it tends to be. Lens design is always a balancing act between compromises. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad lens, but to call it poorly designed out of hand even when nobody here even seems to know exactly how much distortion it actually has seems more than a bit premature.

Personally I don't care - the only thing that I find important is the image at the end of the processing chain, and from what I've seen so far it seems pretty beaut. My only quibble is that from what I've seen so far you can't turn it off.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #77
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
You're dramatically oversimplifying. With the exception of a few lens designs at certain focal lengths all lenses have distortion. Some have more, others have less, and generally the less distortion a lens has the more elements it must have and the larger and slower it tends to be. Lens design is always a balancing act between compromises. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad lens, but to call it poorly designed out of hand even when nobody here even seems to know exactly how much distortion it actually has seems more than a bit premature.

Personally I don't care - the only thing that I find important is the image at the end of the processing chain, and from what I've seen so far it seems pretty beaut. My only quibble is that from what I've seen so far you can't turn it off.
Over at FM I've seen folks there claim that the distortion is in excess of 2%. I can't be certain that's true but assuming it is, that's where my position comes from.

Of course all lenses have distortion. That's meaningless in the context of this discussion. I'm talking specifically of extreme levels of distortion. If a lens has to resort to software correction merely to present an acceptable picture, that's extreme distortion and in my view, a very poorly designed lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #78
Mark T
Registered User
 
Mark T is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Over at FM I've seen folks there claim that the distortion is in excess of 2%. I can't be certain that's true but assuming it is, that's where my position comes from.

Of course all lenses have distortion. That's meaningless in the context of this discussion. I'm talking specifically of extreme levels of distortion. If a lens has to resort to software correction merely to present an acceptable picture, that's extreme distortion and in my view, a very poorly designed lens.

To be clear: 2% distortion is not extreme
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #79
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black View Post
Doesn't have lens distortion compensation, Stewart?
... no, it doesn't matter there's a bit of distortion.

... there was a chap on the forum a few years back that took it upon themselves to point out the unacceptable distortion of every CV lens ever made, after a while it started to become aggravating ...

... when I eventually when I started questioning him it quickly became clear that what he was calling barrel or pincushion-distortion on the lens in question was not the aberration he was claiming but in fact simply the converging verticals of the classic Planar projections

I have taken care ever since to ascertain just what people are calling distortion and it seems converging verticals are seen as distortion far more often than perspective is, despite the fact that they are exactly the same thing
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



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

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #80
nongfuspring
Registered User
 
nongfuspring is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Of course all lenses have distortion. That's meaningless in the context of this discussion. I'm talking specifically of extreme levels of distortion. If a lens has to resort to software correction merely to present an acceptable picture, that's extreme distortion and in my view, a very poorly designed lens.
It's not meaningless, it is relative - you can't look at a single aspect of lens design out of context with other competing factors. Like Mark says 2% is hardly extreme, if 1 extra percent of distortion over the F2.8 ASPH is the compromise for a faster lens I'm sure many would be happy to make such a minor compromise.

But all this is really is meaningless unless it makes an impact on the final image. If the software correction is ruining the photos, then sure, it's bad; if not, then who cares. To dismiss a camera based on it's technology, not on it's usability or output is putting the cart before the horse.
  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 20:28.


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.