mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
From the reports and photos I've seen the image quality is excellent, with caveats. Looking only at resolution (there are many more aspects to image quality) the centre is excellent or perhaps even excellent++; while the corner resolution looks notso-hotso wide open through 'adequate' when stopped down. How much of that less-than-excellent corner performance is due to algorithmic correction is something I can only speculate about, but my guess is "somewhat".
How much does this matter? I think that depends on the photographer and what she wants to use the camera for. It's probably not an ideal camera for fine-art landscape photos printed large or technically correct architectural photography. But then it wouldn't be that anyway, corner performance or no. It's not a camera for me, but that's more than OK: there seem to be many things to like about the Q, none of which depend on pixel-peeping at image corners. I think a lot of people will enjoy the camera and produce great results.
I find the technology used interesting and the results I've seen, so far, compelling - no matter how they're achieved and despite having no personal desire to own a Q.
...Mike
I have not seen a reasonable answer to this question.
You are grossly misrepresenting my position here. I do not care one bit if anyone buys this camera. I have no interest in seeing Leica fail. At all. Your wild and unsubstantiated statement here has no merit.
I am interested in this as a philosophical discussion, and nothing more.
I just wish SOMEONE could answer this question. That no one can is VERY telling to me that the answer is quite difficult.
Incorrect Murray. Leica is telling me to accept this. They want me to buy this camera and so they present this as an acceptable product. I want to know why. Why meaning, why is the lens designed with such intense distortion that it must have software correction?
I'm interested in the theoretical reasoning behind this design. This could be a very powerful trend in the future and I want to understand it.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
My guess is a, b, and c. The Q should be priced like an M240 - RF + EVF + lens.
M240 7000$ - RF 1000$ + EVF 500$ + lens? = ???
Basically the Q at 4250$ with lens is way cheaper than M240 at 6500$ without lens.
There must have been a lot of cost saving going on there. Probably production quantities are also much higher then the M, with higher sales expectations, which pushes costs down.
As far as I'm concerned, I would take a Q body without lens at 4250$ anytime, if it has an M mount. I think that's what Leica should have done, and still can do.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Nobody can, because there is no benefit to the Q for you.
You're on record here as disliking digital:
[Apologies to BrooklynNYC, who holds to a perfectly reasonable point of view. As do you, except for inserting yourself into purely digital discussions without acknowledging that you don't like digital at all, no matter what, rather than having a problem with one specific digital camera.]
You're also on record as opposing EVFs:
So I'll invert the question: given your opposition to digital photography and EVFs, what did or do you expect the Q to offer you? Because on the face of it the correct answer is "nothing at all" before the specifics of the camera or even your complaints about it are even considered.
Or are you just here to start fights? I'm not trying to pick one (sorry if it seems that way): I'm just trying to figure out what you want or are trying to achieve here.
...Mike
I am primarily a film shooter but I have many, many digital cameras, both SLR and mirrorless and have shot 30,000+ digital images with them.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Mike, I think it's a very interesting thread and very valid, regardless of the OP's stance on digital.
On LUF, there was a thread about Leica or Zeiss being better, started by troll, but it resulted in some very interesting discussions. As long as we don't start a war and keep the discussions civilized and factual, I don't see why we couldn't discuss this.
On LUF, there was a thread about Leica or Zeiss being better, started by troll, but it resulted in some very interesting discussions. As long as we don't start a war and keep the discussions civilized and factual, I don't see why we couldn't discuss this.
My guess is a, b, and c. The Q should be priced like an M240 - RF + EVF + lens.
M240 7000$ - RF 1000$ + EVF 500$ + lens? = ???
Basically the Q at 4250$ with lens is way cheaper than M240 at 6500$ without lens.
There must have been a lot of cost saving going on there. Probably production quantities are also much higher then the M, with higher sales expectations, which pushes costs down.
As far as I'm concerned, I would take a Q body without lens at 4250$ anytime, if it has an M mount. I think that's what Leica should have done, and still can do.
Thank you for your reply Edward. Using your calculation you are pricing the Q's lens at around $2300, correct? This would be cheap by Leica standards, correct (I'm not up to date on Leica lens prices).
If that's the case, then the answer to my question is that the design was executed to lower the cost of the camera and if the lens were fully corrected, the price of the lens might be substantially higher.
THIS is what I wanted to know by asking questions. Why everyone aside from Edward had to go so over the top and be ultra defensive is beyond me.
Thanks Edward, you're a class act.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Thank you for your kind words, Hunter.
No, actually, I'm pricing the Q lens at 0$. Basically the lens is for free, if you calculate that the M240 - RF + EVF = 6500$. Of course, that doesn't make much sense, but this shows how low is the Q price by Leica standards.
I'm pretty sure that there was a lot of cost cutting on the Q, and also that Leica is accepting a much lower margin than on the M.
I'm still against software corrections, mind you
Thank you for your kind words, Hunter.
No, actually, I'm pricing the Q lens at 0$. Basically the lens is for free, if you calculate that the M240 - RF + EVF = 6500$. Of course, that doesn't make much sense, but this shows how low is the Q price by Leica standards.
I'm pretty sure that there was a lot of cost cutting on the Q, and also that Leica is accepting a much lower margin than on the M.
I'm still against software corrections, mind you
Ah, I saw the word lens in your equation and immediately thought Q lens, not M lens. My mistake.
The conclusion still stands though, as free is even less than $2300!
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I, too, have many digital cameras and have shot more than 30K images with them (though I've printed or done something else with far fewer of them). I am primarily a digital photographer but I have shot a great many rolls of film (thousands, though not tens of thousands, of frames). I have intentions of shooting about 50:50 film v digital but circumstances (and intertia) conspire against me.
So what?
I don't expect the Leica Q to do a single thing for me. As it happens, I don't get along with EVFs and have no real use for a 28mm FF fixed-lens EVF digital camera. That's OK by me. I don't have to buy one. It's existence doesn't bother me or enthuse me, yet I find the technology interesting (while having no interest in buying one). It seems you don't want one either. Yet the very existence of the camera seems to bug you. I'm not sure why, but you do seem quite vocal about it.
Always in a way which seems oppositional, and I don't know why that is.
There's no reason why you should disclose that, I guess, but without some idea of why you're so upset about a camera you'll never buy your condemnations are becoming, well, tiresome.
As, no doubt, are my lukewarm defences of a camera I don't care that much about myself. I think, at this point (it should have been earlier) I'll just leave things there.
...Mike
CMur12
Well-known
You know, I would have to qualify myself as something of a purist, as I shoot only film - 135 and 120 - in old manual-focus, manual-exposure cameras, because that is how I like to work.
At this point, I'm fascinated with digital technology in theory, but I'm not ready to put it into practice. As an old slide shooter, I'm used to doing everything in-camera and I haven't warmed up to post-processing images on a computer.
I'm not interested in buying a Q for myself, but I can see that it doesn't make sense to isolate elements from one system and then try to make them fit into dissimilar systems. I've observed this in other disciplines and every indication is that it applies here, too. By this I mean that isolating the Q's lens from the camera and comparing it to Leica's interchangeable M lenses (a dissimilar system) isn't a valid comparison.
As to the question "why would Leica offer such a product," it may be to test the market and see what the company will have to do in the future to survive.
- Murray
At this point, I'm fascinated with digital technology in theory, but I'm not ready to put it into practice. As an old slide shooter, I'm used to doing everything in-camera and I haven't warmed up to post-processing images on a computer.
I'm not interested in buying a Q for myself, but I can see that it doesn't make sense to isolate elements from one system and then try to make them fit into dissimilar systems. I've observed this in other disciplines and every indication is that it applies here, too. By this I mean that isolating the Q's lens from the camera and comparing it to Leica's interchangeable M lenses (a dissimilar system) isn't a valid comparison.
As to the question "why would Leica offer such a product," it may be to test the market and see what the company will have to do in the future to survive.
- Murray
You stated that I was anti-digital. I proved beyond a doubt that your statement is factually incorrect.
Your reading comprehension is extremely poor. Your conclusions cannot be substantiated by any text that I have written. I stated quite clearly that I want Leica to succeed as a company which includes selling this camera. There is no need for you to so completely misstate my position.
Wrong. There is a reason. You stated something that was absolutely wrong about my position and I proved conclusively that you were in error. I am not going to allow such a misrepresentation about me to go unchallenged. If you dont like it, then dont make statements about things you clearly do not understand.
What is tiresome is your constant need to mischaracterize me. I am not upset. I am trying to learn about a technology. Somehow me trying to learn is what is upsetting you. That and the near constant stream of "I dont know" coming from you indicates that you are very frustrated.
It's always good to leave things you dont understand. You could have avoided a lot of problems by avoiding so many mischaracterizations of my position. It is very much unnecessary.
The comparison goes beyond Leica. Why does the Sony RX1 have 0.7% distortion while the Leica Q has 10-12%? Ok, software can correct this. Understood. The question then is what is the benefit to the end user by this approach compared to the Sony approach?
Dguebey
Amateur
I can't answer yet.
Various considerations :
You can have distorsion (near) perfectly corrected, but then astigmatism correction cannot be mastered. Of course, the reverse is true.
Bad astigmatism means definitely soft images, correct it is a primary goal.
Worse : digital capture need perfectly flat field, hard to manage with spherical correction (and non-astigmatism).
Various considerations :
You can have distorsion (near) perfectly corrected, but then astigmatism correction cannot be mastered. Of course, the reverse is true.
Bad astigmatism means definitely soft images, correct it is a primary goal.
Worse : digital capture need perfectly flat field, hard to manage with spherical correction (and non-astigmatism).
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Hunter, I would suspect all three factors to some degree (they are not really separable). It's a product that has to be practical, sellable, and at least a hair profitable. I have never known Leica to engineer things based solely on cost.
In fact, my observation of German cameras equipment is that in general, the engineers seem to get paid based on the number of parts that can be jammed into a given item.
They probably figured out the market price of a Leica fixed lens (apparently 2/3 the cost of an interchangeable body) and built a product that hit that and their target margin. They're not running a charity, and they are probably not making a giant margin. Part of this is possibly being written off as testing for a new interchangeable-lens camera.
What's in it for you? Who knows. I think there is a decent value proposition - you pay a lot less for for a usable camera, it's a sealed system (so sensors never get dirty) with no rangefinder to drift off alignment, you don't have lens optimization problems, and you get nice pictures. If you don't like the way it gets to that result, there is always an M and a 28mm f/1.4 at about 3x the cost.
D
In fact, my observation of German cameras equipment is that in general, the engineers seem to get paid based on the number of parts that can be jammed into a given item.
They probably figured out the market price of a Leica fixed lens (apparently 2/3 the cost of an interchangeable body) and built a product that hit that and their target margin. They're not running a charity, and they are probably not making a giant margin. Part of this is possibly being written off as testing for a new interchangeable-lens camera.
What's in it for you? Who knows. I think there is a decent value proposition - you pay a lot less for for a usable camera, it's a sealed system (so sensors never get dirty) with no rangefinder to drift off alignment, you don't have lens optimization problems, and you get nice pictures. If you don't like the way it gets to that result, there is always an M and a 28mm f/1.4 at about 3x the cost.
D
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
You are right and I am wrong. I abase myself before ye. On whatever subject you choose, or none at all.
Excuse me. Please. Sir. :bang: Does that change the camera you don't like
...Mike