Avotius
Some guy
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.
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.
Which 28mm 1.7 FF lens has 0 distortion and how much does it cost? Are there any? I honestly don't know...
Avotius
Some guy
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
Mentor
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
Ian Watts
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
Moderator
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 .
One of the great reasons for fixed lens digital cameras .
robbeiflex
Well-known
I'm not OK with it yet. Not until they have it on a 50mm version. 
f16sunshine
Moderator
burancap
Mentor
It is 2015. What a great day for having such advances!
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
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...
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
Mentor
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.
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
Mentor
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.
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
on the good foot
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.
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
Well-known
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
Assuming that it doesn't, I hope the photographer has the choice of applying the corrections or not.
- Murray
BillBingham2
Registered User
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
Sorry I know lost of folks do it but I'm a nope.
B2
YYV_146
Well-known
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
somewhat colored
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
G
xyz3450
-
Nicely opined Godfrey! +1