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 101 78.29%
Nope 28 21.71%
Voters: 129. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?
Old 06-10-2015   #1
Avotius
Some guy
 
Avotius's Avatar
 
Avotius is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,515
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.
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #2
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Which 28mm 1.7 FF lens has 0 distortion and how much does it cost? Are there any? I honestly don't know...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #3
Avotius
Some guy
 
Avotius's Avatar
 
Avotius is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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?
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #4
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,662
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #5
ian_watts
Ian Watts
 
ian_watts is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 438
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.
__________________
Tumblr // Flickr // Instagram // ianwatts.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #6
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,808
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 .
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #7
robbeiflex
Registered User
 
robbeiflex's Avatar
 
robbeiflex is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 1,002
I'm not OK with it yet. Not until they have it on a 50mm version.
__________________
"They say, ‘If you use this digital camera, you can take a clear picture in the dark’. The dark should stay dark. You can’t really see that much, and you don’t really want to see that much anyway.” Nobuyoshi Araki 2006

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #8
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbeiflex View Post
I'm not OK with it yet. Not until they have it on a 50mm version.

Jah Mon !

__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #9
burancap
Registered User
 
burancap's Avatar
 
burancap is online now
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Age: 52
Posts: 2,194
It is 2015. What a great day for having such advances!
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #10
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 251
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...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #11
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,149
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #12
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,962
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.
__________________
Lynn
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #13
DougFord
on the good foot
 
DougFord's Avatar
 
DougFord is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 714
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.
__________________

the walk
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #14
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is online now
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 693
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
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #15
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,348
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #16
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 30
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avotius View Post
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.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #17
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,888
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #18
conyon
Registered User
 
conyon is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #19
phatnev
Registered User
 
phatnev is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 212
Many say? There are like 3 reviews out...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #20
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,755
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.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #21
c.poulton
Registered User
 
c.poulton's Avatar
 
c.poulton is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 719
I don't know... I get all the arguments for software in-camera correction, but somehow, on some level, it all seems wrong.
__________________
Christian

My Gallery
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #22
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 3,813
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. :-)
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji digital; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #23
Gid
Registered User
 
Gid's Avatar
 
Gid is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
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 ......................
__________________
My Gallery

My Top Ten

Gid
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2015   #24
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 38
Posts: 3,822
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.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #25
Black
Photographer.
 
Black's Avatar
 
Black is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 558
The RX1 has similar corrective software in camera and works very well. What does it really matter. I mean really?
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #26
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,159
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
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #27
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avotius View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #28
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,637
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.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #29
seakayaker1
Registered User
 
seakayaker1's Avatar
 
seakayaker1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,913
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.
__________________
______________________

Life is Grand! ~~~ Dan
M Monochrom ~ M-P (240), M6 TTL & MP ~ Mamiya 7 II ~ GF1 ~ K5IIs
~ Rolleiflex f3.5 with Carl Zeiss 75mm Planar (type 4) ~
The hardest part of starting a new project is starting it ~ Keith Carter
Flickr Sets: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #30
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 63
Posts: 2,801
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 gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #31
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,455
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #32
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
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
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Other Gallories

Nikon: F2, EM, Konica: FS-1, TC,

Nikkor: 24mm f/2.8 Ais, 28mm f/3.5 Ai, 50mm f/1.4 N/Ai, 105mm f/2.5 P N/Ai
Hexanon: 28mm f/3.5 AR, 40mm f/1.8 AR, 57mm f/1.2 AR
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #33
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNG View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #34
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,957
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
__________________
Feedback Link
Flickr: My Street
Other Gallories

Nikon: F2, EM, Konica: FS-1, TC,

Nikkor: 24mm f/2.8 Ais, 28mm f/3.5 Ai, 50mm f/1.4 N/Ai, 105mm f/2.5 P N/Ai
Hexanon: 28mm f/3.5 AR, 40mm f/1.8 AR, 57mm f/1.2 AR
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #35
NeeZee
Registered User
 
NeeZee is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
Age: 38
Posts: 554
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...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #36
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
 
Oscuro's Avatar
 
Oscuro is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: North America, Europe
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeeZee View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #37
Avotius
Some guy
 
Avotius's Avatar
 
Avotius is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,515
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?
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #38
burancap
Registered User
 
burancap's Avatar
 
burancap is online now
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Age: 52
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avotius View Post
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.
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-11-2015   #39
Avotius
Some guy
 
Avotius's Avatar
 
Avotius is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,515
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!
__________________
Flickr.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-12-2015   #40
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by burancap View Post
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
__________________
"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 11:45.


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.