Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?

[Hunter S Thompson]

But all this is really is meaningless unless it makes an impact on the final image. If the software correction is ruining the photos, then sure, it's bad; if not, then who cares. To dismiss a camera based on it's technology, not on it's usability or output is putting the cart before the horse.

OK, then what are we paying $4000 for then? The red dot? Big ticket lenses cost a fortune because they required extreme designs, extremely difficult to grind lenses, etc to give their excellent performance.

Why would you pay $4000 for a lens & camera (assume for argument sake that the bulk of the cost is with the lens) that is poorly designed and requires software correction to make an acceptable image?

Do you just like lining Leica's pockets?

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

To be clear: 2% distortion is not extreme

I went back to the thread over at FM and found there that the estimations on the distortion for this lens is 7-12%. How accurate this is I cannot say but over there they are discussing how the raw image contains extreme levels of distortion as well as how the software correction causes further damage to the final image.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1370077/5

 

[jsrockit]

OK, then what are we paying $4000 for then? The red dot? Big ticket lenses cost a fortune because they required extreme designs, extremely difficult to grind lenses, etc to give their excellent performance.

Why would you pay $4000 for a lens & camera (assume for argument sake that the bulk of the cost is with the lens) that is poorly designed and requires software correction to make an acceptable image?

Do you just like lining Leica's pockets?

Which digital camera / lens combination doesn't use software correction?

What digital camera is the Q's competition (FF, 28mm 1.7 lens, etc.)?

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

From DPR regarding the Q's lens:

We took a look at the uncorrected Raw in RawDigger, and sure enough there's a good deal of barrel distortion that requires correction for a proper, rectilinear image. This correction of distortion requires stretching of the image at the edges/corners, which requires resampling of pixels, ultimately leading to some sharpness cost.

So I repeat the question: What are you paying $4000 for if you are getting a lens that is poorly designed and requires software correction (losing sharpness) to even display a proper image.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Which digital camera / lens combination doesn't use software correction?

Most of them.

What digital camera is the Q's competition (FF, 28mm 1.7 lens, etc.)?

Sony RX1 is close enough, 0.7% distortion vs 7-12% distortion from the Leica.

 

[jsrockit]

Most of them.

Really? Why does Lightroom have profiles for almost every lens? (I'm asking out of ignorance not arrogance)

Sony RX1 is close enough, 0.7% distortion vs 7-12% distortion from the Leica.

35mm f/2 is a different lens than a 28mm f/1.7 ... I would imagine easier to make within the tolerances you desire. Are there any photo examples of the Q's lens without any correction out there?

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Really? Why does Lightroom have profiles for almost every lens? (I'm asking out of ignorance not arrogance)

There's a difference (IMO) from a lens that has software correction provided by Adobe or DxO, that removes what little distortion exists (less than 1%) in a lens and a lens that *must* have software correction to have a presentable image. DPR stated that the Q needs software correction, otherwise it's not rectilinear!! The Q is a partial fish eye lens!!

35mm f/2 is a different lens than a 28mm f/1.7 ... I would imagine easier to make within the tolerances you desire. Are there any photo examples of the Q's lens without any correction out there?

The differences are negligible in the context of this discussion.

There are examples of the software correction in the FM thread I linked above.

Here's a quote from that thread after seeing the correction turned off:

"Holy fisheye Batman indeed! That looks really extreme. No wonder the corners suffer upon correction (combination of using so much of the actual image circle + major distortion correction).
"

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Here's a Leica Q image uncorrected. $4000 to design this???

 

[Black]

To be fair, it would have cost more than $4k to design it 😉

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

To be fair, it would have cost more than £4k to design it 😉

Here's a great quote from Edward Karaa over at FM. He states the case much better than I do.

"For over 100 years, great lenses were designed and manufactured without any digital correction and they worked great. If you look at Sony's own offerings, all FF ZA primes are superb without needing any correction, whether for A or FE mount. I'm suspicious that the whole distortion thing is a way for the manufacturers to make more money, by selling us an inferior product. I will refuse to pay any penny from my own money to finance and thus encourage such scheme. Heck even Leica has joined with the ridiculous Q lens not even covering the whole image frame. "

 

[mfunnell]

Sony RX1 is close enough, 0.7% distortion vs 7-12% distortion from the Leica.

At Sean Reid's pay site (I find it worth paying for, others may not) he noted that the Q's performance was inferior in the corners compared to the RX1R. It may be that this is an artifact of the software correction being applied.

How big a problem is this? I don't know. I'd need to see more photos to tell. I also suspect it would depend a lot on what the photos were being used for. It might be a big deal for some people.

...Mike

 

[Sparrow]

... ah, normal service is resumed 😀 ... it was all beginning to look a bit too positive there for a while, but thankfully at last someone has found a deal-breaker, it was a close run thing there almost consensus for a few days

 

[Michael Markey]

Yes all the other old deal breakers don`t seem to have the same effect as they once did .
Perhaps we`ve gotten use to them over time and they`ve now become acceptable.

In camera lens correction looks promising though .
I think it could stick around as the go to deal breaker for some time especially when coupled with the old deal breaker ....Leica is expensive .😀

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Yes all the other old deal breakers don`t seem to have the same effect as they once did .
Perhaps we`ve gotten use to them over time and they`ve now become acceptable.

In camera lens correction looks promising though .
I think it could stick around as the go to deal breaker for some time especially when coupled with the old deal breaker ....Leica is expensive .😀

If you are cool with paying $4000 for a very poorly designed piece of equipment,then more power to you. Have at it.

 

[Michael Markey]

If you are cool with paying $4000 for a very poorly designed piece of equipment,then more power to you. Have at it.

I think its retailing for $4705 in the UK and yes ....its too much money for me but as a camera rather than it having any suggested defect.

The 28 f/l is ideal for some of the stuff I do and I rather prefer af to manual focus.

 

[Calzone]

No, that's incorrect. Most lenses that need lens correction are either el-cheapo lenses, or designed for some other advantage like very small size.

Leica is doing it just to save on their own costs. Nothing more.

The lens is absolutely poorly designed. That's a fact. Who here would use this lens without any assistance from software?

I do not think you are correct here. There are lens corrections via 6-bit coding even for very well designed leica lenses like my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Lenses are optimized via the 6-bit coding in camera and in LR.

Are you saying that my 28 Cron and 50 Lux are bad or cheap lenses because they use lens correction? Would I use my expensive Leica glass without the software corrections that were designed to be used with?

Cal

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

I do not think you are correct here. There are lens corrections via 6-bit coding even for very well designed leica lenses like my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Lenses are optimized via the 6-bit coding in camera and in LR.

Are you saying that my 28 Cron and 50 Lux are bad or cheap lenses because they use lens correction? Would I use my expensive Leica glass without the software corrections that were designed to be used with?

Cal

Are the lenses you mentioned above useable without software correction? I suggest that yes, they are.

Is the Leica Q lens useable without software correction? I suggest that no, iti s not useable unless you like the fish eye look.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Nobody can answer: What are you paying $4000 for with the Leica Q when the capabilities of the lens produce images like this? Is the software worth this amount of money?

 

[Aristophanes]

Here's a great quote from Edward Karaa over at FM. He states the case much better than I do.

"For over 100 years, great lenses were designed and manufactured without any digital correction and they worked great. If you look at Sony's own offerings, all FF ZA primes are superb without needing any correction, whether for A or FE mount. I'm suspicious that the whole distortion thing is a way for the manufacturers to make more money, by selling us an inferior product. I will refuse to pay any penny from my own money to finance and thus encourage such scheme. Heck even Leica has joined with the ridiculous Q lens not even covering the whole image frame. "

Total nonsense.

It's a meme repeated so often the repetition is supposed to replace facts.

Comparing lenses designed for film and lenses designed for sensors is a false comparison.

The reason why there is software correction is to accommodate well depth on sensors and minimize the micro-lens distortions. Sensors are later than film and much less tolerant, and int return you get a level of granular accuracy.

Another major factor is that optics are inherently asymmetrical in manufacture despite extensive controls due to the plasticity of the glass medium. So all lenses are slightly "wonky" across the frame. A sensor is much more likely to pick that up than film so software distortion correction can checksum (using an equivalent term) for discrepancies between edges and corners. In other words: the parameters of the sensor are far less tolerant than those of the optics by inherent differences in design, manufacture, and materials.

There are also colour issues in distortion correction. Another topic.

Distortion correction is used to average the data between the less accurate optics and the extremely accurate sensor. Leica glass or lesser pedigrees the same issue exists. The silicon on the sensor is ridiculously sensitive to distortions played out by the silicon in the glass.

 

[Corran]

No, that's incorrect. Most lenses that need lens correction are either el-cheapo lenses, or designed for some other advantage like very small size.

Leica is doing it just to save on their own costs. Nothing more.

The lens is absolutely poorly designed. That's a fact. Who here would use this lens without any assistance from software?

I do not think you are correct here. There are lens corrections via 6-bit coding even for very well designed leica lenses like my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. Lenses are optimized via the 6-bit coding in camera and in LR.

Are you saying that my 28 Cron and 50 Lux are bad or cheap lenses because they use lens correction? Would I use my expensive Leica glass without the software corrections that were designed to be used with?

Cal

If the posted image and claimed distortion of 7% or whatever is true, there's a massive difference between the Q and any Cron/Lux.

That image shown looks halfway to a fisheye. Is that building built at a curve?!

Distortion of 2-3% disturbs me in an image, 7+ is just crazy. By the time that is corrected it's probably only a 30-32mm lens! I wonder, is the EVF corrected on the fly? Otherwise, whoops you've got framing issues!

Obviously for a lot of photography this doesn't matter. But sometimes it will, and for some people that's a serious deal-breaker, even more so with that much distortion.

I thought people were complaining about 2-3% at first, not 7+...