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 06-17-2015   #81
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by nongfuspring View Post
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.
OK, then what are we paying $4000 for then? The red dot? Big ticket lenses cost a fortune because they required extreme designs, extremely difficult to grind lenses, etc to give their excellent performance.

Why would you pay $4000 for a lens & camera (assume for argument sake that the bulk of the cost is with the lens) that is poorly designed and requires software correction to make an acceptable image?

Do you just like lining Leica's pockets?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #82
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T View Post
To be clear: 2% distortion is not extreme
I went back to the thread over at FM and found there that the estimations on the distortion for this lens is 7-12%. How accurate this is I cannot say but over there they are discussing how the raw image contains extreme levels of distortion as well as how the software correction causes further damage to the final image.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1370077/5
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
OK, then what are we paying $4000 for then? The red dot? Big ticket lenses cost a fortune because they required extreme designs, extremely difficult to grind lenses, etc to give their excellent performance.

Why would you pay $4000 for a lens & camera (assume for argument sake that the bulk of the cost is with the lens) that is poorly designed and requires software correction to make an acceptable image?

Do you just like lining Leica's pockets?
Which digital camera / lens combination doesn't use software correction?

What digital camera is the Q's competition (FF, 28mm 1.7 lens, etc.)?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #84
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
From DPR regarding the Q's lens:

We took a look at the uncorrected Raw in RawDigger, and sure enough there's a good deal of barrel distortion that requires correction for a proper, rectilinear image. This correction of distortion requires stretching of the image at the edges/corners, which requires resampling of pixels, ultimately leading to some sharpness cost.

So I repeat the question: What are you paying $4000 for if you are getting a lens that is poorly designed and requires software correction (losing sharpness) to even display a proper image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #85
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Which digital camera / lens combination doesn't use software correction?
Most of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
What digital camera is the Q's competition (FF, 28mm 1.7 lens, etc.)?
Sony RX1 is close enough, 0.7% distortion vs 7-12% distortion from the Leica.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #86
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Most of them.
Really? Why does Lightroom have profiles for almost every lens? (I'm asking out of ignorance not arrogance)

Quote:
Sony RX1 is close enough, 0.7% distortion vs 7-12% distortion from the Leica.
35mm f/2 is a different lens than a 28mm f/1.7 ... I would imagine easier to make within the tolerances you desire. Are there any photo examples of the Q's lens without any correction out there?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #87
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Really? Why does Lightroom have profiles for almost every lens? (I'm asking out of ignorance not arrogance)
There's a difference (IMO) from a lens that has software correction provided by Adobe or DxO, that removes what little distortion exists (less than 1%) in a lens and a lens that *must* have software correction to have a presentable image. DPR stated that the Q needs software correction, otherwise it's not rectilinear!! The Q is a partial fish eye lens!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post

35mm f/2 is a different lens than a 28mm f/1.7 ... I would imagine easier to make within the tolerances you desire. Are there any photo examples of the Q's lens without any correction out there?
The differences are negligible in the context of this discussion.

There are examples of the software correction in the FM thread I linked above.

Here's a quote from that thread after seeing the correction turned off:

"Holy fisheye Batman indeed! That looks really extreme. No wonder the corners suffer upon correction (combination of using so much of the actual image circle + major distortion correction).
"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #88
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Here's a Leica Q image uncorrected. $4000 to design this???

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #89
Black
Photographer.
 
Black's Avatar
 
Black is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 557
To be fair, it would have cost more than $4k to design it
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #90
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black View Post
To be fair, it would have cost more than £4k to design it
Here's a great quote from Edward Karaa over at FM. He states the case much better than I do.

"For over 100 years, great lenses were designed and manufactured without any digital correction and they worked great. If you look at Sony's own offerings, all FF ZA primes are superb without needing any correction, whether for A or FE mount. I'm suspicious that the whole distortion thing is a way for the manufacturers to make more money, by selling us an inferior product. I will refuse to pay any penny from my own money to finance and thus encourage such scheme. Heck even Leica has joined with the ridiculous Q lens not even covering the whole image frame. "
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #91
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
Sony RX1 is close enough, 0.7% distortion vs 7-12% distortion from the Leica.
At Sean Reid's pay site (I find it worth paying for, others may not) he noted that the Q's performance was inferior in the corners compared to the RX1R. It may be that this is an artifact of the software correction being applied.

How big a problem is this? I don't know. I'd need to see more photos to tell. I also suspect it would depend a lot on what the photos were being used for. It might be a big deal for some people.

...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   #92
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,478
... ah, normal service is resumed ... it was all beginning to look a bit too positive there for a while, but thankfully at last someone has found a deal-breaker, it was a close run thing there almost consensus for a few days
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



Youíre only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #93
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,330
Yes all the other old deal breakers don`t seem to have the same effect as they once did .
Perhaps we`ve gotten use to them over time and they`ve now become acceptable.

In camera lens correction looks promising though .
I think it could stick around as the go to deal breaker for some time especially when coupled with the old deal breaker ....Leica is expensive .
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #94
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Yes all the other old deal breakers don`t seem to have the same effect as they once did .
Perhaps we`ve gotten use to them over time and they`ve now become acceptable.

In camera lens correction looks promising though .
I think it could stick around as the go to deal breaker for some time especially when coupled with the old deal breaker ....Leica is expensive .
If you are cool with paying $4000 for a very poorly designed piece of equipment,then more power to you. Have at it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #95
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 Hunter S Thompson View Post
If you are cool with paying $4000 for a very poorly designed piece of equipment,then more power to you. Have at it.

I think its retailing for $4705 in the UK and yes ....its too much money for me but as a camera rather than it having any suggested defect.

The 28 f/l is ideal for some of the stuff I do and I rather prefer af to manual focus.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #96
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 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?
I do not think you are correct here. There are lens corrections via 6-bit coding even for very well designed leica lenses like my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Lenses are optimized via the 6-bit coding in camera and in LR.

Are you saying that my 28 Cron and 50 Lux are bad or cheap lenses because they use lens correction? Would I use my expensive Leica glass without the software corrections that were designed to be used with?

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #97
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I do not think you are correct here. There are lens corrections via 6-bit coding even for very well designed leica lenses like my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Lenses are optimized via the 6-bit coding in camera and in LR.

Are you saying that my 28 Cron and 50 Lux are bad or cheap lenses because they use lens correction? Would I use my expensive Leica glass without the software corrections that were designed to be used with?

Cal
Are the lenses you mentioned above useable without software correction? I suggest that yes, they are.

Is the Leica Q lens useable without software correction? I suggest that no, iti s not useable unless you like the fish eye look.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #98
Hunter S Thompson
-
 
Hunter S Thompson is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 71
Nobody can answer: What are you paying $4000 for with the Leica Q when the capabilities of the lens produce images like this? Is the software worth this amount of money?

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #99
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Here's a great quote from Edward Karaa over at FM. He states the case much better than I do.

"For over 100 years, great lenses were designed and manufactured without any digital correction and they worked great. If you look at Sony's own offerings, all FF ZA primes are superb without needing any correction, whether for A or FE mount. I'm suspicious that the whole distortion thing is a way for the manufacturers to make more money, by selling us an inferior product. I will refuse to pay any penny from my own money to finance and thus encourage such scheme. Heck even Leica has joined with the ridiculous Q lens not even covering the whole image frame. "
Total nonsense.

It's a meme repeated so often the repetition is supposed to replace facts.

Comparing lenses designed for film and lenses designed for sensors is a false comparison.

The reason why there is software correction is to accommodate well depth on sensors and minimize the micro-lens distortions. Sensors are later than film and much less tolerant, and int return you get a level of granular accuracy.

Another major factor is that optics are inherently asymmetrical in manufacture despite extensive controls due to the plasticity of the glass medium. So all lenses are slightly "wonky" across the frame. A sensor is much more likely to pick that up than film so software distortion correction can checksum (using an equivalent term) for discrepancies between edges and corners. In other words: the parameters of the sensor are far less tolerant than those of the optics by inherent differences in design, manufacture, and materials.

There are also colour issues in distortion correction. Another topic.

Distortion correction is used to average the data between the less accurate optics and the extremely accurate sensor. Leica glass or lesser pedigrees the same issue exists. The silicon on the sensor is ridiculously sensitive to distortions played out by the silicon in the glass.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #100
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 713
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I do not think you are correct here. There are lens corrections via 6-bit coding even for very well designed leica lenses like my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Lenses are optimized via the 6-bit coding in camera and in LR.

Are you saying that my 28 Cron and 50 Lux are bad or cheap lenses because they use lens correction? Would I use my expensive Leica glass without the software corrections that were designed to be used with?

Cal
If the posted image and claimed distortion of 7% or whatever is true, there's a massive difference between the Q and any Cron/Lux.

That image shown looks halfway to a fisheye. Is that building built at a curve?!

Distortion of 2-3% disturbs me in an image, 7+ is just crazy. By the time that is corrected it's probably only a 30-32mm lens! I wonder, is the EVF corrected on the fly? Otherwise, whoops you've got framing issues!

Obviously for a lot of photography this doesn't matter. But sometimes it will, and for some people that's a serious deal-breaker, even more so with that much distortion.

I thought people were complaining about 2-3% at first, not 7+...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #101
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
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?
I agree with you - why would you want to correct in software, it should be perfect right on the film straight out of the camera. Oh, wait...

Get over it. This is a digital camera and requires software to exist. What they are doing is perfectly acceptable.
__________________
"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 06-17-2015   #102
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,177
Perhaps they should have got Sigma to make the lens .... it would be a better optic and would likely peel at least a grand off the price of the camera! LOL
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #103
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 jsrockit View Post
Really? Why does Lightroom have profiles for almost every lens? (I'm asking out of ignorance not arrogance)
John,

Lenses are profiled in Lightroom for software corrections. In LR you can even create a lens correction if you are using a lens that does not have a profile.

Here might be another debate if the lens correction is better in camera from the OEM or an external one in a post processor. Some people do not like the in camera profiles.

I Jeff Schewe's book, "The Digital Negative" he makes a custom profile to match his backup to his primary camera even though they are the same model and series to cancel out sample variation.

Lens correction seems widely used. Where the lens correction is inserted and to what degree seems debatable due to user preference. Why all the arguing is beyond me? If you don't like technology it is OK: don't use or embrace it; and move on...

My friend Gary who is a vintage guitar dealer taught me a powerful lesson about value and percieved value. Without question Garys offerings were prime samples of vintage guitars, and they were priced accordingly, meaning priced with a premium. Whenever I tried to negociate a better price, Gary stood firm, and he would say, "If you can find another guitar like mine in as good a condition or better at a better price go buy it."

If you do not think the "Q" is a camera for you: oh-well. If you think another camera is a better deal: "Buy it."

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #104
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 Hunter S Thompson View Post
Nobody can answer: What are you paying $4000 for with the Leica Q when the capabilities of the lens produce images like this? Is the software worth this amount of money?

... is there a provenance for this photo, or the context it which it was first published? ... you'll understand my scepticism
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



Youíre only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #105
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 Hunter S Thompson View Post
Are the lenses you mentioned above useable without software correction? I suggest that yes, they are.

Is the Leica Q lens useable without software correction? I suggest that no, iti s not useable unless you like the fish eye look.
Hunter,

Yes it is true I can use these lenses without the correction, but why would I want to un-optimize lens performance?

Your argument about aceptable degrees of distortion I understand.

I'm just trying to reel you in and call you out on some of your generalizations that are not true. Lens corrections are common. That is the point. Lens corrections come built into cameras and also are imbedded into post processing software. Do you turn off the lens corrections in Lightroom to add distortions? You can, but I don't.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #106
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford View Post
I agree with you - why would you want to correct in software, it should be perfect right on the film straight out of the camera. Oh, wait...

Get over it. This is a digital camera and requires software to exist. What they are doing is perfectly acceptable.
And film was nowhere near as flat as a sensor. Off by magnitudes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #107
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is online now
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter S Thompson View Post
Nobody can answer: What are you paying $4000 for with the Leica Q when the capabilities of the lens produce images like this? Is the software worth this amount of money?

If this is indeed an uncorrected Q photo, I find it very impressive. The smaller than 35mm image circle shows that lens and software were designed together to make a compact 28/1.7 FF systems available. True, > 4k US is scary, but even at that price-point there is nothing else comparable available. As an engineer, my compliments to Leica.

Judging the product by the performance of the uncorrected, non-detachable lens makes no sense to me. You wouldn't judge the performance of a modern car without it's computer-controlled engine management either.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #108
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
If the posted image and claimed distortion of 7% or whatever is true, there's a massive difference between the Q and any Cron/Lux.

That image shown looks halfway to a fisheye. Is that building built at a curve?!

Distortion of 2-3% disturbs me in an image, 7+ is just crazy. By the time that is corrected it's probably only a 30-32mm lens! I wonder, is the EVF corrected on the fly? Otherwise, whoops you've got framing issues!

Obviously for a lot of photography this doesn't matter. But sometimes it will, and for some people that's a serious deal-breaker, even more so with that much distortion.

I thought people were complaining about 2-3% at first, not 7+...
Reality finally begins to seep in at RFF. LOL

The 7 stages of Q release:

1) *** is it?
2) OMG FF "summilux" and it looks modern.
3) But it also has the M looks at the back.
4) Oohhh I saw some pretty shots from the street.
5) This thing is incredible! A miracle.
6) Shut up, of course it's just great. Correction? Everyone needs it!
7) ......whoa.....it's a fisheye!!

This place is priceless.

BTW source for image above:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/top...077/3#13057657
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #109
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,478
... oh, come on is 1%, 2-3%, or over 7% ... Leica really should come clean about it, and what's a percent distortion anyway, they've not even mentioned it in their literature which is ridiculous for a subject with so much to misrepresent
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



Youíre only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #110
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,304
As barrel distortion increases, the more the corrected image is cropped. So there is a balance between cost, size, weight and distortion level. It seems Leica, as do other brands, aimed for the optimum compromise. Good for them. When it comes to the lens, as far as I'm concerned the Leica nailed the cost/performance balance

The statement made by Godfrey"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.
"

is relevant. Thoughtfully designing a lens to eliminate second-order barrel distortions (a.k.a. mustache barrel distortion) and higher-order barrel distortions is thoughtful and desirable because frame edge artifacts and other subtle problems are eliminated.

Ironically the coded lens corrections used for M9 bodies (not to mention using color shift correction plug-ins during post-production) are acceptable for many Leica owners. They happily pay a premium for Leica M9 bodies. If post-acquisition correction implies inadequate design, the M9 is no different than the Q.

The image shown in this thread is misleading because both converging verticals and barrel distortion are present.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand Ė 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 06-17-2015   #111
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
If this is indeed an uncorrected Q photo, I find it very impressive. The smaller than 35mm image circle shows that lens and software were designed together to make a compact 28/1.7 FF systems available. True, > 4k US is scary, but even at that price-point there is nothing else comparable available. As an engineer, my compliments to Leica.
It's the opposite for me. The lens doesn't even cover the format! Wow.

Compact? The lens is huge on that body.

I still wonder if the EVF is being corrected on the fly. That's more impressive to me than the correction itself, if true. So is the lens actually a 25mm corrected to become a 28mm in reality? (Yes I know marked FL is not usually the actual FL.)

I find it hilarious how many people are falling all over themselves to get one of these and/or praising the "innovation" (ha!), and then defending the price-point to boot. And God help you if you disagree and pose a differing opinion.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #112
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is online now
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider
If this is indeed an uncorrected Q photo, I find it very impressive. The smaller than 35mm image circle shows that lens and software were designed together to make a compact 28/1.7 FF systems available. True, > 4k US is scary, but even at that price-point there is nothing else comparable available. As an engineer, my compliments to Leica.
It's the opposite for me. The lens doesn't even cover the format! Wow.

Compact? The lens is huge on that body.

I still wonder if the EVF is being corrected on the fly. That's more impressive to me than the correction itself, if true. So is the lens actually a 25mm corrected to become a 28mm in reality? (Yes I know marked FL is not usually the actual FL.)

I find it hilarious how many people are falling all over themselves to get one of these and/or praising the "innovation" (ha!), and then defending the price-point to boot. And God help you if you disagree and pose a differing opinion.
See, you could ask how to correct a fish-eye image on-the fly to a rectilinear image, via a simple projection algorithm, and I could explain.

But instead, and as usual (check also mabelsound's thread), you are just being rude. So carry on.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #113
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 48
Posts: 697
It looks like 80% of the participants don't mind. Sorry to be among the 20% who do.
I know software corrections are very common these days. There is always a draw back. I really love the fact that Leica lets me choose whether to use these corrections or turn them off. In fact I only use the corrections with the 25 biogon because of the visible purple shading.
Now the Q lens is halfway fisheye and doesn't cover the entire frame. There's not even a point to give me the choice to turn the corrections off. The lens becomes unusable without them.
If I was a pro photographer I wouldn't really care. The result would be most important to me. But if I was a pro I wouldn't use Leica in the first place. I would be using Nikon or Canon. But I'm not a pro and I use Leica because I like their philosophy and minimalist approach. Knowing how the Q lens works really kills the experience for me. You may not mind, it's your right, I mind.
__________________
M240 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/1.5 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #114
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
See, you could ask how to correct a fish-eye image on-the fly to a rectilinear image, via a simple projection algorithm, and I could explain.

But instead, and as usual (check also mabelsound's thread), you are just being rude. So carry on.

Roland.
If you think that's rude, then I'm not sure how you can have a conversation. Rude would be if I called you stupid. I write pretty directly, so excuse me if you don't like my writing style. I'm sure we could carry on quite amiably IRL.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #115
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 247
Admire the design of the lens....? Huh. Interesting.

I suppose if one is to project a need for things to be the way one imagines they "should" be, one may apply a design rigor. But it's pointless, moot, academic....

The OP's poll has largely been lost, amid howls of outrage. I think of Nellie McLung: "...just get the thing done and let them howl."

Clearly, it's a 135 digital camera with a fast 28mm bolted to the front.

Does it work for you?

If yes, then obviously you're okay with it.

If the camera's output is visually unacceptable (and that determination would be nearly impossible to lay at the feet of the presence or absence of software correction as a function of lens design), then whether you're okay or not with the correction is irrelevant.

The fact that nobody will be able to tell from looking at prints, seems to me to be the litmus.

A final observation: you either pay people to design, among other things, lenses, software, or both. It still requires that you pay people. And anyone who thinks that computers do things automatically, on their own, without constant review and assessment, particularly in the field of imaging, is living without the benefit of any real knowledge.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #116
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 Ned Bojic View Post
He sure sounds like a used car dealer. And what kind of friend is this? No friend of mine would stand firm on a price and tell me to go find a better deal elsewhere. I'm quite surprised.
Ned,

What you imply as is true: used guitars are a lot like the used car market, but in Gary's business he holds the trump card because as far as rarity and condition Gary's products that he deals kinda corner the market, and that is the point.

I take no offence to Gary's manners or his "free advice," LOL. I have known Gary for several decades, I value his opinion, and we have conducted business on many occasions. Understand that similar to Leica Gary has a "boutique" business that does not necessarily appeal to the mass market.

When buying a vintage guitar from Gary would be like buying a rare vintage musclecar that is in remarkable original condition. Gary can get the premium on his pricing because he has the market kinda cornered.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #117
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,488
I suppose the bottom line is... Digital images do not exist without software.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #118
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 EdwardKaraa View Post
It looks like 80% of the participants don't mind. Sorry to be among the 20% who do.
I know software corrections are very common these days. There is always a draw back. I really love the fact that Leica lets me choose whether to use these corrections or turn them off. In fact I only use the corrections with the 25 biogon because of the visible purple shading.
Now the Q lens is halfway fisheye and doesn't cover the entire frame. There's not even a point to give me the choice to turn the corrections off. The lens becomes unusable without them.
If I was a pro photographer I wouldn't really care. The result would be most important to me. But if I was a pro I wouldn't use Leica in the first place. I would be using Nikon or Canon. But I'm not a pro and I use Leica because I like their philosophy and minimalist approach. Knowing how the Q lens works really kills the experience for me. You may not mind, it's your right, I mind.
Ed,

You are a sensible person, and I'm OK that you are different. No argument which is good or works for you.

I just don't like distortion(s) in some people's writing. Some people who don't like optical distortion(s) don't seem to mind distortions in their writing. LOL. That I find really funny. Double-LOL.

The "Q" is not for everyone...

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #119
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
I find it hilarious how many people are falling all over themselves to get one of these and/or praising the "innovation" (ha!), and then defending the price-point to boot.
I don't feel the same. This looks like a solid product with a lot of promise. I have used the Sony RX1R for quite a long time, and this camera may very well address its major weaknesses. The price to pay in terms of usability is added size. This camera is not about innovation, it is about delivering a complete product. I do hate the price, but this is based on my income level.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2015   #120
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 Lss View Post
I don't feel the same. This looks like a solid product with a lot of promise. I have used the Sony RX1R for quite a long time, and this camera may very well address its major weaknesses. The price to pay in terms of usability is added size. This camera is not about innovation, it is about delivering a complete product. I do hate the price, but this is based on my income level.
I don't have the money either, but the "Q" is an interesting camera if I did. Usibility and size are important to me too.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  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 18:25.


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.