Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Leica Q / CL/ T / X Series (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=183)
-   -   Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q? (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149448)

Avotius 06-10-2015 13:35

Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?
 
The following is just my opinion, which is bound to conflict with most of yours.

If I was spending $4250 on a Leica Q I would not tolerate after the fact distortion corrections. Even though initial reports show the lens to be pretty good, many still say there are some issues in the corners from digital corrections.

Now maybe I am being too much of a purist but if I were going to spend big money on a Leica, and with Leica's legendary reputation for optics, I would not go for something that a "half designed" lens, especially if that is the only lens you get to use with that high of a price tag.

Now I know some will say that this is the way things are now and many companies are doing it, but to me it just reeks of under-designing lenses to save money and still selling them for a lot.

jsrockit 06-10-2015 13:46

Which 28mm 1.7 FF lens has 0 distortion and how much does it cost? Are there any? I honestly don't know...

Avotius 06-10-2015 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit (Post 2495382)
Which 28mm 1.7 FF lens has 0 distortion and how much does it cost? Are there any? I honestly don't know...

Which any mm photographic lens has 0 distortion? None, at least that we mere mortals can afford. But that's not the argument I make is it?

mfogiel 06-10-2015 14:00

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?

ian_watts 06-10-2015 14:09

I'm not sure it really matters – it's not as if you can take the lens off and stick it on another camera. Best to view the lens and camera as an integrated unit and what comes out of the combination is what is important.

f16sunshine 06-10-2015 14:17

Yes I'm happy with a solution that provides distortion free output by any means as long as it's undetectable.
One of the great reasons for fixed lens digital cameras .

robbeiflex 06-10-2015 14:19

I'm not OK with it yet. Not until they have it on a 50mm version. :D

f16sunshine 06-10-2015 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbeiflex (Post 2495414)
I'm not OK with it yet. Not until they have it on a 50mm version. :D


Jah Mon !

:D

burancap 06-10-2015 14:22

It is 2015. What a great day for having such advances!

Oscuro 06-10-2015 14:44

Best to anguish over the content, I think. More there in the long run.
Everybody I've met who anguishes over gear or some aspect thereof never seems to be happy, but the guys and girls I know who shoot, edit, and hang their work on walls or in books seem much happier.

Hardly a cohort... but...

x-ray 06-10-2015 15:07

Hasselblad has been doing it for a long time as well as Nikon and Canon. Many of the Hasselblad lenses exceed the price of the Q. It works perfectly from my experience. Hasselblads explanation was that it enabled them (Fuji) to design lenses that would be impossible or near impossible without the post processing correction capability.

I found it to work exceptionally well but thats Hasselblad and Nikon not Leica. It really depends on how much effort they want to put into it.

lynnb 06-10-2015 16:33

Maybe there's another way of looking at this. Everything in the image pipeline, including the lens, affects image quality. There have always been design choices and compromises in every component. Rather than saying "after the fact", why not think "before the image"?

Software/firmware in-camera lens corrections are a relatively new development that adds another tool to help designers create good image-making devices. Once they had only optics to bend the light. New developments in optics led to better ways to bend the light. Now they have another way to bend the light using computation.

So rather than seeing it as a "half-designed lens", I see it as a further development in designers capabilities to create new lenses that synthesise optics and computation. This allows them to design lenses (and therefore cameras) that are, for example, smaller; or perhaps with larger apertures for the same physical size.

The previous optics-only solutions often used a larger lens than was necessary to cover the film area, to throw a larger image circle so that only the more central, less distorted part of the image circle created the image - I understand this was mostly used for wide-aperture lenses prone to distortion at the edges. The only alternative was to design lenses with smaller maximum apertures.

Leica started the 35mm ball rolling with compact cameras that could be carried everywhere and be fast and unobtrusive compared to the larger format cameras that preceded it. The new computational imaging tools now available mean that this tradition can continue. People like a small form factor.

Sure there are compromises with some edge degradation due to the pixel-shifting computations to correct distortions, that's part of the price to pay. I just don't see it as a half-designed lens; I see it as a design choice to achieve a specific end result. From early reports Leica seem to have done this very well with this camera.

I have an LX3, which has a Leica-designed lens and uses similar computational corrections. This helped Panasonic to design a very small camera with a relatively fast f2 lens.

DougFord 06-10-2015 17:18

The purest will presumably have to wait for the Sony RX2.
Then we'll all see whether corrections via software or curving the sensor 'wins', wins from a technical standpoint. These solutions are/will be available to the avg (lol) electronics consumer at your local camera store.

CMur12 06-10-2015 17:38

Does the presence of electronic corrections automatically mean that the lens is inferior to other Leica lenses?

Assuming that it doesn't, I hope the photographer has the choice of applying the corrections or not.

- Murray

BillBingham2 06-10-2015 18:19

I bet that some who is more experienced with post processing software could come up with a series of scripts that would allow a $400 digital P&S look pretty dang close to as good.

Sorry I know lost of folks do it but I'm a nope.

B2

YYV_146 06-10-2015 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avotius (Post 2495393)
Which any mm photographic lens has 0 distortion? None, at least that we mere mortals can afford. But that's not the argument I make is it?

The 16mm Hologon is by design without any distortion whatsoever. But it's also going to destroy the shutter of any M body you care to put it on, unless you saw off the rear baffles...

I don't mind distortion. Modern software is good and resolutions high enough.

Godfrey 06-10-2015 19:14

It bothers me not one whit. The application of software correction to optics is what has enabled the Hubble Space Telescope to show us the heavens at the limits of Time itself. Having a little piece of that in my earth bound camera is a joy and a wonder to me.

G

mjc 06-10-2015 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey (Post 2495516)
It bothers me not one whit. The application of software correction to optics is what has enabled the Hubble Space Telescope to show us the heavens at the limits of Time itself. Having a little piece of that in my earth bound camera is a joy and a wonder to me.

G

Nicely opined Godfrey! +1

phatnev 06-10-2015 21:59

Many say? There are like 3 reviews out...

Lss 06-10-2015 23:00

I would prefer having the option to turn the corrections off (which according to dpreview is not possible), as it is sometimes beneficial. Otherwise, it's all about the performance.

c.poulton 06-10-2015 23:29

I don't know... I get all the arguments for software in-camera correction, but somehow, on some level, it all seems wrong.

Jamie Pillers 06-10-2015 23:50

Speaking as someone that'll never be able to afford, nor be able to justify, paying multi-thousands of dollars for a lens, I'm perfectly happy accepting whatever software solutions Fuji wants to throw at their X-body/lens combinations. Hey... they produce stunning results! Who cares how they do it. :-)

Gid 06-11-2015 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers (Post 2495602)
Speaking as someone that'll never be able to afford, nor be able to justify, paying multi-thousands of dollars for a lens, I'm perfectly happy accepting whatever software solutions Fuji wants to throw at their X-body/lens combinations. Hey... they produce stunning results! Who cares how they do it. :-)

+1 ......................

thegman 06-11-2015 00:26

Sure, why not. If it's an interchangeable lens camera, then maybe it becomes a bit different, but as fixed lens compact, no, wouldn't mind a bit.

Black 06-11-2015 01:16

The RX1 has similar corrective software in camera and works very well. What does it really matter. I mean really?

pvdhaar 06-11-2015 04:50

Can't afford one, but otherwise it would depend..

Used as a practical imaging device, then yes please, throw in those lens corrections to get the best out of the whole package..

On the other hand, if it comes to bragging rights, then no; imagine forking out 4250 and then constantly running into people who point out that it's not got Leica's most proper glass in front as it requires the software hoopla to function :(

jsrockit 06-11-2015 04:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avotius (Post 2495393)
Which any mm photographic lens has 0 distortion? None, at least that we mere mortals can afford. But that's not the argument I make is it?

It might not be the argument, but my question still remains. If there aren't any, then why does it matter?

willie_901 06-11-2015 06:24

Welcome to the twenty first century! The

There inherent problems with software based optical corrections can be trivial or serious.

o the image is cropped to some degree
o frame edge resolution degrades
o in some cases, higher-order distortions are not corrected

Better optics require less correction, which minimizes these disadvantages/issues. Sophisticated distortion modeling (high-order corrections) is important.

Well-impimented distortion correction is an asset and would make the cameras price-point even more attractive to me.

seakayaker1 06-11-2015 08:31

I have bought a few prints in my lifetime, I really do not know which camera or lens the photographer used when making the image. It was the final result that mattered.

...... also if you do not like something then do not buy it or participate in the activity.

Bottom line with any corporation is profit.

Pioneer 06-11-2015 09:14

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. :)

zuiko85 06-11-2015 09:18

This is the type of thing that if Leica simply applied the correction as a matter of overall function and did not mention it at all then the users would say "what a great lens", there would be no discussion and everyone would be happy. Sometimes you don't have to tell everything you know.

DNG 06-11-2015 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsrockit (Post 2495382)
Which 28mm 1.7 FF lens has 0 distortion and how much does it cost? Are there any? I honestly don't know...

My Nikon 24mm f/2.8 has NEAR "0" distortion
No distortion correction in Lr or CC

Fuji X-E2/Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ais CFC (fov 35mm)

2015 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib: My Classic Street Photography, on Flickr


Nikon FE, Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ais CFC (fov 24mm)
Fuji Neopan 400

005 Buildings N-FE--N24mm-FUN400 at 2 by Peter Arbib -My Gerneral Galleries, on Flickr

jsrockit 06-11-2015 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNG (Post 2495871)
My Nikon 24mm f/2.8 has NEAR "0" distortion
No distortion correction in Lr or CC

Oh I believe it... but I guess I was thinking the speed of the Q's lens, being 1.7, puts it in rare company. Thanks for the examples. :)

DNG 06-11-2015 11:35

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

NeeZee 06-11-2015 12:55

If you are OK with a camera using software to calculate your exposure, monitor your battery, record and store your pictures etc. then why on earth would distortion correction be a problem? To me that sounds just like another 'how much technology can I use and still 'keep it real" ' - debate...

Oscuro 06-11-2015 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeeZee (Post 2495933)
If you are OK with a camera using software to calculate your exposure, monitor your battery, record and store your pictures etc. then why on earth would distortion correction be a problem? To me that sounds just like another 'how much technology can I use and still 'keep it real" ' - debate...

And of course, the resultant image is the elephant in the room. That's what's real. Not the minutiae of process.

But there are many for whom the so-called technical purity, for lack of a better phrase, is paramount. Best to be gentle with them. After all, whether pinhole onto wet-plate or CCD/CMOS, it's all "technology" isn't it?

Avotius 06-11-2015 17:13

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?

burancap 06-11-2015 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avotius (Post 2496048)
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?

Honestly, I am not sure what side is the "technical purity" side. I can say (again) that in 2015, technical mastery TODAY is the generation of algorithms, etc. to augment a quality, but production-affordable component into a finished product, not slide-ruling a piece of molten sand into submission.

The Q is Leica's first proper step into not just a viable, but an absolutely sustainable future as a modern company.

Avotius 06-11-2015 18:58

Indeed. Your point is well received Jeff. In my mind Leica always had this traditional feel that they liked to bank on and now they are changing a lot. Kind of like people and Porches 911's where the subject of changes and variations can bring people on one side or the other. I am guessing more and more camera companies will be heading in this direction with their non SLR cameras so its just the way of the future to be accepted as such.

PS. Can you imagine non corrected view on an SLR? Fisheye like distortions making people dizzy!

Calzone 06-12-2015 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by burancap (Post 2496062)
Honestly, I am not sure what side is the "technical purity" side. I can say (again) that in 2015, technical mastery TODAY is the generation of algorithms, etc. to augment a quality, but production-affordable component into a finished product, not slide-ruling a piece of molten sand into submission.

The Q is Leica's first proper step into not just a viable, but an absolutely sustainable future as a modern company.

Jeff,

To riff off Pioneer's post above, I try to limit post processing as much as possible, and I try to maximize the image quality and optimize the contrast/saturation at time of image capture so I don't have to do it in post.

On one hand I still have my 28 Cron and my MM9 to remain "pure" if I want to, but I'm thinking that I don't mind the "Q's" management of distortion. It would be a luxury product bought for it's compact size and because 28 FOV is kinda important to me. If Leica comes out with a 50mm version I would be pretty much compelled to buy that version too because 28 and 50 is generally what I carry in two rigged M-bodies and on my MM9 generally it is either a 28 Cron or a 50 Lux ASPH.

In a way if Leica comes out with a 50 version a "Q-28" and a "Q-50" might serve me better than say buying a M-240 and sharing my glass as I do on my MM9.

Oh-well I say to the in camera correction.

Cal


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:12.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.