Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?

Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?

  • Total voters
    151
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
 
Pioneer said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Avotius said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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?)
 
Pioneer said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

And under the enlarger.. There is dodge and burn :D

Gary
 
DNG said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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..
icon10.gif
 
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. :p

IMO, life is too short. I would rather enjoy taking pictures with whatever camera I enjoy.
 
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.
 
mfogiel said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ken Ford said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
codester80 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well said ...
I`m just pleased that I haven`t got the problem .
For me the challenge is the content.
 
codester80 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/6031d90a117e7cc00f78f9ee29a41ca9-8.html
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top