mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
And they rig the exposure values as well
Sure, they say they used that faster shutter speed, but they faked it......Mike
Aristophanes
Well-known
I wouldn't say "design flaws".
Rather, software becomes just another tool to smooth out the necessary compromises in optical engineering.
There is practically no difference between this argument and correction "in post" for known aberrations.
Or are we going to get into a debate about dodging and burning in the darkroom as well? Those people who got the exposure wrong....!
Aristophanes
Well-known
And we have to remember that the majority of the world is moving (fast) away from PC post processing anyway and towards in-camaeraor at the very least mobile OS end use. The PC era digital darkroom is a non-growth market and many, many Leica customers are going down a post-PC path already.
They should just read the text I write. It's very clear for all to see exactly what my position is. If one cannot understand this, then questions requesting clarity would be in order.
You do not know this to be a fact. What you wrote above is pure speculation on your part.
You failed to understand the point I was trying to make. Never did I imply that these two lenses were equivalent.
This is abject nonsense. I'm not even remotely an evangelist. I have an opinion on the subject and am discussing it without resorting to put downs the way you are.
It would be very interesting to know what are the Q's design compromises.
The lens is not particularly small, so size does not seem to be part of the equation.
What is being gained by the end user to design a lens with ~10% distortion that needs software correction?
Any speculation?
Aristophanes
Well-known
For a 28/1.7 on the 135 equivalence...the lens appears pretty small for a WA mirrorless design. Again the exactness of today's sensors require far more precise alignment and mount support than previous era film designs.
This lens and sensor combo is all about very low light shooting IMO. Furthermore, I speculate this is Leica's way of working around their more limited sensor supply.
And I would postulate that what is being gained is a faster, digital era Summilux, reasonably compact for the intended purpose and traditional Leica form factor.
And I am no Leica fan. This is a peacock manufacturer that puts borderline sensors into over-engineered bodies and sells them to bribe-rich third world civil servants at airports to get their bling investments out of the country (seen it firsthand). Leica long ago stopped being about premium IQ. Sony Semi and Canon's fabs are way, way ahead there.
Nevertheless, I see why software correction has become necessary regardless of manufacturer. Mirrorless in particular (mechanical or EVF) benefits where microlens arrays hit their theoretical. You just cannot reasonably compare to a film era Nikon 50/1.2.
It's a feature, not a bug.
I was not making this comparison so please forget about it. Let me try a 3rd time.
Suppose you wanted a lens without any coma (it could be any property but let's just pick that for now). Your interest is astrophotography and low coma is of primary importance here.
Company A makes a lens that is fully corrected optically (using exotic glass and grinding methods) and sells this lens for $2000.
Company B takes one of their off-the-shelf lenses (costing no more than $200 to manufacture) and corrects for coma with software. They sell this lens for $2000.
Which lens do you buy?
Aristophanes
Well-known
Are the final results identical?
Then any econ will tell you it is cost/benefit.
Like the software correction they did for the Hubble.
Yes, with maybe optical a hair better. Maybe.
Benefit for whom?
Not relevant to a consumer situation.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I just pulled up the RAWs published by DPReview and put them into both Lightroom and Rawdigger. I would not characterize the distortion as extreme or even that noticeable. I'm too tired to tell, but on ACR 9, it looks like 10-15 points, or maybe 2%. It's a simple distortion.
This is what is noticeable:
- CA is being edited out
- Lens angle is actually a bit wider than 28mm
- The uncorrected performance in terms of sharpness is quite good
- The image as shown in LR with the default settings is quite nice
You can put on whatever tinfoil hat you want.
Dante
This is what is noticeable:
- CA is being edited out
- Lens angle is actually a bit wider than 28mm
- The uncorrected performance in terms of sharpness is quite good
- The image as shown in LR with the default settings is quite nice
You can put on whatever tinfoil hat you want.
Dante
The distortion as well as vignetting is VERY noticeable in the image I have seen and posted. Others, not me, have called this lens a half fish eye based on the extreme distortion.
Perhaps your tinfoil needs adjusting.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
First, I wouldn't take this matter that emotionally, guys. It's just a freaking camera.
So you woke up this morning, and thought it's time to buy a new pair of shoes. You went to your regular place where they sell your favorite brand, known for high quality leather. You narrow down your choice to 2 pairs, almost identical in design, leather quality and price. You can afford only one pair, so you choose the one you think you like most. Back home, happy with your purchase, you go to a shoe review site, where you discover that the pair you bought is made of high quality synthetic leather, while the one you didn't buy is made of high quality genuine leather. In this situation, I imagine there would be 3 kinds of different responses depending on the personality:
a. They are both indistinguishable in terms of look, comfort, quality and price. Who cares if this one is synthetic and the other is genuine. No body will see the difference. I keep it.
b. I will return it and get the genuine leather one. I think it's better value for the same price. Besides I feel better to know my shoes are genuine not synthetic, even if others can't see the difference.
c. I buy exclusively from this brand because of their high quality leather. If they start to use synthetics, and not even disclose it, that doesn't look very honest to me. I will return the shoes for a refund.
So you woke up this morning, and thought it's time to buy a new pair of shoes. You went to your regular place where they sell your favorite brand, known for high quality leather. You narrow down your choice to 2 pairs, almost identical in design, leather quality and price. You can afford only one pair, so you choose the one you think you like most. Back home, happy with your purchase, you go to a shoe review site, where you discover that the pair you bought is made of high quality synthetic leather, while the one you didn't buy is made of high quality genuine leather. In this situation, I imagine there would be 3 kinds of different responses depending on the personality:
a. They are both indistinguishable in terms of look, comfort, quality and price. Who cares if this one is synthetic and the other is genuine. No body will see the difference. I keep it.
b. I will return it and get the genuine leather one. I think it's better value for the same price. Besides I feel better to know my shoes are genuine not synthetic, even if others can't see the difference.
c. I buy exclusively from this brand because of their high quality leather. If they start to use synthetics, and not even disclose it, that doesn't look very honest to me. I will return the shoes for a refund.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I think everyone comprehended (from the first of many times you stated it) your opinion that a $4,500 something camera is insufficiently designed if the glass part does not kick out an undistorted image. Fair enough. That is a statement of your opinion (and that of others) based on grabbing something from the middle of an imaging process, not what is fed into a normal imaging process.
Suppose that there is horrible distortion and that the image is totally unusable. The response to that is, "so what?"
The Q is an imaging system designed to create a result. It was designed subject to constraints, and those were addressed by engineers. You and I are not privy to what all those constraints were, but it's pretty easy to surmise that some of them were (1) having a fast, sharp wide-angle that (2) has a single moving element for speedy focus while (3) fitting into a normal-sized barrel with a 49mm filter thread while (4) presenting a tele centric image to the sensor. It is the role of engineers to figure out how to do this, and what you would call "compromises" or "cheapening" happens all the time. In fact, the use of post-lens distortion correction is not even a new thing with digital cameras; the Noblex, the Minox, and the earliest Leicas all used curved film planes to un-distort the results of distorted optical systems.
As a system, the Q seems to be working quite well. Better, in fact, than what many "perfectly designed" lenses do on digital cameras. Witness the ZM 21/4.5, which is about as perfectly designed and executed as a symmetrical wide-angle can be - yet has corner problems on digital cameras. If anything, the Q evidences a very intelligent design that sidesteps the negative synergies between "properly designed" lenses and digital sensors. You get the same alteration of data with those combinations when you fix corner vignetting and color shifts. The Q is actually the product of successful engineering around maximizing results on a full-size sensor - hardly a case of cut corners for cost savings.
You're entertaining a construct that you should be able to grab the result from intermediate steps the middle of a system and make judgments about system performance from that. That same logic could be used to disaggregate the individual elements of a detachable lens and complain of the aberrations and distortion present in each of them.
So I suppose you returned your M240 when you figured out that it does not have a chassis like the M film cameras whose looks it imitates? Leica certainly did not disclose that.
Dante
uhoh7
Mentor
Dante, the RAWS are already corrected in camera. You have to go to some trouble to see them uncorrected. Certainly no way to see it in LR.
Serhan at FM used RAW Therapee for the image Hunter posted earlier.
Here is gpwhite at the L forums:
"Well, my Q does not achieve sharp corners, and it shows rather weak corners. PERIOD. But the more I shoot it, the more I am engaged and enthused about my Q.
For me, the Q @ f/2 (seems it nicest opening) is at a large gap below the 28 Summilux @ f/2 on M. Yet, the Q is biting sharp and very good 3D... there seems to be field curvature or something behind the curtain with the Q. It is not pleasant.
My hunch is that the image you posted, chrismuc, was somehow brought forward in the processing stream without in-camera distortion correction (software/ glitch). I shot a couple of tall buildings yesterday, and the lines are perfectly correctly. I not percieve any curvilinear distortion (on a monitor, as prints are a few days off).
IMHO, IQ at distant focus on the Q, however, does not rival the laser-etched, straight lines of the 28 Summicron (at say 10m). I have not shot at a distance with the 28 SX yet.
That's my download so far..."
frankly, it's the first really honest and accurate review I've read. No massaging.
A used M9 and 28 Cron might be had for 5500 together and the Q's 4200 tag also shows it's relation to that rig in image quality at base ISO.
The Q is a sweet rig yes. Phenom, no.
Dante,
All I'm asking is where is the benefit for ME in this Q system. Lenses have been designed for digital cameras that do not require such extreme levels of software correction. This is a fact. The Sony RX1 has less than 1%. The Leica Q has in excess of 10% distortion, which requires software correction to produce a useable image.
Fine.
Now tell me WHY I should accept this? Is it:
a) Leica excluded from the lens design the necessary glass elements to correct the image, thus making the camera cheaper to make and so could be sold at a lower price?
b) Leica excluded from the lens design the necessary glass elements to correct the image, thus making the camera cheaper to make and so increase their profit margins?
c) The lens was designed as is so that it could be much smaller than an optically corrected lens?
d) Something else....
All I'm asking is where is the benefit for ME in this Q system. Lenses have been designed for digital cameras that do not require such extreme levels of software correction. This is a fact. The Sony RX1 has less than 1%. The Leica Q has in excess of 10% distortion, which requires software correction to produce a useable image.
Fine.
Now tell me WHY I should accept this? Is it:
a) Leica excluded from the lens design the necessary glass elements to correct the image, thus making the camera cheaper to make and so could be sold at a lower price?
b) Leica excluded from the lens design the necessary glass elements to correct the image, thus making the camera cheaper to make and so increase their profit margins?
c) The lens was designed as is so that it could be much smaller than an optically corrected lens?
d) Something else....
Exactly. Dante is evaluating *corrected* images. 12% distortion corrected down to 2% in his eyes!!
aizan
Mentor
so...is the image quality good or not?
uhoh7
Mentor
another Q owner perplexed by the corners:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3862140#forum-post-56006705
Looking at more Q images, I am not thrilled with OOF rendering. It's like the ZM 35/2 but more so. Again, 28 cron way ahead in this respect. To my eyes.
One example:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/645566-post6.html
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3862140#forum-post-56006705
Looking at more Q images, I am not thrilled with OOF rendering. It's like the ZM 35/2 but more so. Again, 28 cron way ahead in this respect. To my eyes.
One example:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/645566-post6.html
CMur12
Well-known
Nobody is telling you you have to accept this. Others have stated why Leica has taken an acceptable approach to the design and execution of this camera in their opinion. You do not like this approach and the product is clearly not for you, so DON'T BUY IT.
Unfortunately, you appear to be determined to make sure no one else buys the camera, either, because you don't like it.
Some will buy this camera and be happy with it, while it clearly isn't the camera for you. Problem solved.
- Murray
Lss
Well-known
So, what's the actual problem there? The poster shows two wide-angle photos with very different camera leveling and poor alignment.