Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?

[Ken Ford]

Well designed? Who wants distortion? It's as if a Ferrari were designed to have one of the front tires out of alignment, but with an auxiliary 5th tire available to correct this.


I agree with you here, but tell me, where is the benefit to the customer for having this poorly designed lens attached to the camera that needs software help? How do you, me, or anyone benefit from this? What are you paying $4000 for in this case? You cannot look at this lens and admire its design because it is in fact loaded with distortion that needs software correction.

If this camera were $2000, then perhaps my objections would fade away. It's an entirely different scenario of Leica is producing a substandard lens that needs software correction in order to lower their costs and pass it on to the end user. This I can get behind.

What's next, artificially made bokeh? Imagine buying a 50mm f/1.4 where all the bokeh is made from software. We can laugh at it now, but such software already exists. It looks awful or at least fake today but it wont stay that way forever. Will you or anyone else be interested in a $4000 50mm lens (which is really a ho hum design) but has great software correction?

I agree with you - why would you want to correct in software, it should be perfect right on the film straight out of the camera. Oh, wait...

Get over it. This is a digital camera and requires software to exist. What they are doing is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Keith]

Perhaps they should have got Sigma to make the lens .... it would be a better optic and would likely peel at least a grand off the price of the camera! LOL 😀

 

[Calzone]

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

John,

Lenses are profiled in Lightroom for software corrections. In LR you can even create a lens correction if you are using a lens that does not have a profile.

Here might be another debate if the lens correction is better in camera from the OEM or an external one in a post processor. Some people do not like the in camera profiles.

I Jeff Schewe's book, "The Digital Negative" he makes a custom profile to match his backup to his primary camera even though they are the same model and series to cancel out sample variation.

Lens correction seems widely used. Where the lens correction is inserted and to what degree seems debatable due to user preference. Why all the arguing is beyond me? If you don't like technology it is OK: don't use or embrace it; and move on...

My friend Gary who is a vintage guitar dealer taught me a powerful lesson about value and percieved value. Without question Garys offerings were prime samples of vintage guitars, and they were priced accordingly, meaning priced with a premium. Whenever I tried to negociate a better price, Gary stood firm, and he would say, "If you can find another guitar like mine in as good a condition or better at a better price go buy it."

If you do not think the "Q" is a camera for you: oh-well. If you think another camera is a better deal: "Buy it."

Cal

 

[Sparrow]

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?

... is there a provenance for this photo, or the context it which it was first published? ... you'll understand my scepticism

 

[Calzone]

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,

Yes it is true I can use these lenses without the correction, but why would I want to un-optimize lens performance?

Your argument about aceptable degrees of distortion I understand.

I'm just trying to reel you in and call you out on some of your generalizations that are not true. Lens corrections are common. That is the point. Lens corrections come built into cameras and also are imbedded into post processing software. Do you turn off the lens corrections in Lightroom to add distortions? You can, but I don't.

Cal

 

[Aristophanes]

I agree with you - why would you want to correct in software, it should be perfect right on the film straight out of the camera. Oh, wait...

Get over it. This is a digital camera and requires software to exist. What they are doing is perfectly acceptable.

And film was nowhere near as flat as a sensor. Off by magnitudes.

 

[ferider]

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?

If this is indeed an uncorrected Q photo, I find it very impressive. The smaller than 35mm image circle shows that lens and software were designed together to make a compact 28/1.7 FF systems available. True, > 4k US is scary, but even at that price-point there is nothing else comparable available. As an engineer, my compliments to Leica.

Judging the product by the performance of the uncorrected, non-detachable lens makes no sense to me. You wouldn't judge the performance of a modern car without it's computer-controlled engine management either.

Roland.

 

[uhoh7]

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+...

Reality finally begins to seep in at RFF. LOL

The 7 stages of Q release:

1) *** is it?
2) OMG FF "summilux" and it looks modern.
3) But it also has the M looks at the back.
4) Oohhh I saw some pretty shots from the street.
5) This thing is incredible! A miracle.
6) Shut up, of course it's just great. Correction? Everyone needs it!
7) ......whoa.....it's a fisheye!!

This place is priceless. 🙂

BTW source for image above:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1370077/3#13057657

 

[Sparrow]

... oh, come on is 1%, 2-3%, or over 7% ... Leica really should come clean about it, and what's a percent distortion anyway, they've not even mentioned it in their literature which is ridiculous for a subject with so much to misrepresent

 

[willie_901]

As barrel distortion increases, the more the corrected image is cropped. So there is a balance between cost, size, weight and distortion level. It seems Leica, as do other brands, aimed for the optimum compromise. Good for them. When it comes to the lens, as far as I'm concerned the Leica nailed the cost/performance balance

The statement made by Godfrey"A lens designed to be used with an embedded correction algorithm may well be designed to have more simple, easily corrected aberrations in order that there are fewer complex, difficult to remove aberrations, the end result being better overall performance.
"

is relevant. Thoughtfully designing a lens to eliminate second-order barrel distortions (a.k.a. mustache barrel distortion) and higher-order barrel distortions is thoughtful and desirable because frame edge artifacts and other subtle problems are eliminated.

Ironically the coded lens corrections used for M9 bodies (not to mention using color shift correction plug-ins during post-production) are acceptable for many Leica owners. They happily pay a premium for Leica M9 bodies. If post-acquisition correction implies inadequate design, the M9 is no different than the Q.

The image shown in this thread is misleading because both converging verticals and barrel distortion are present.

 

[Corran]

If this is indeed an uncorrected Q photo, I find it very impressive. The smaller than 35mm image circle shows that lens and software were designed together to make a compact 28/1.7 FF systems available. True, > 4k US is scary, but even at that price-point there is nothing else comparable available. As an engineer, my compliments to Leica.

It's the opposite for me. The lens doesn't even cover the format! Wow.

Compact? The lens is huge on that body.

I still wonder if the EVF is being corrected on the fly. That's more impressive to me than the correction itself, if true. So is the lens actually a 25mm corrected to become a 28mm in reality? (Yes I know marked FL is not usually the actual FL.)

I find it hilarious how many people are falling all over themselves to get one of these and/or praising the "innovation" (ha!), and then defending the price-point to boot. And God help you if you disagree and pose a differing opinion.

 

[ferider]

If this is indeed an uncorrected Q photo, I find it very impressive. The smaller than 35mm image circle shows that lens and software were designed together to make a compact 28/1.7 FF systems available. True, > 4k US is scary, but even at that price-point there is nothing else comparable available. As an engineer, my compliments to Leica.

It's the opposite for me. The lens doesn't even cover the format! Wow.

Compact? The lens is huge on that body.

I still wonder if the EVF is being corrected on the fly. That's more impressive to me than the correction itself, if true. So is the lens actually a 25mm corrected to become a 28mm in reality? (Yes I know marked FL is not usually the actual FL.)

I find it hilarious how many people are falling all over themselves to get one of these and/or praising the "innovation" (ha!), and then defending the price-point to boot. And God help you if you disagree and pose a differing opinion.

See, you could ask how to correct a fish-eye image on-the fly to a rectilinear image, via a simple projection algorithm, and I could explain.

But instead, and as usual (check also mabelsound's thread), you are just being rude. So carry on.

Roland.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

It looks like 80% of the participants don't mind. Sorry to be among the 20% who do.
I know software corrections are very common these days. There is always a draw back. I really love the fact that Leica lets me choose whether to use these corrections or turn them off. In fact I only use the corrections with the 25 biogon because of the visible purple shading.
Now the Q lens is halfway fisheye and doesn't cover the entire frame. There's not even a point to give me the choice to turn the corrections off. The lens becomes unusable without them.
If I was a pro photographer I wouldn't really care. The result would be most important to me. But if I was a pro I wouldn't use Leica in the first place. I would be using Nikon or Canon. But I'm not a pro and I use Leica because I like their philosophy and minimalist approach. Knowing how the Q lens works really kills the experience for me. You may not mind, it's your right, I mind.

 

[Corran]

See, you could ask how to correct a fish-eye image on-the fly to a rectilinear image, via a simple projection algorithm, and I could explain.

But instead, and as usual (check also mabelsound's thread), you are just being rude. So carry on.

Roland.

If you think that's rude, then I'm not sure how you can have a conversation. Rude would be if I called you stupid. I write pretty directly, so excuse me if you don't like my writing style. I'm sure we could carry on quite amiably IRL.

 

[Oscuro]

Admire the design of the lens....? Huh. Interesting.

I suppose if one is to project a need for things to be the way one imagines they "should" be, one may apply a design rigor. But it's pointless, moot, academic....

The OP's poll has largely been lost, amid howls of outrage. I think of Nellie McLung: "...just get the thing done and let them howl."

Clearly, it's a 135 digital camera with a fast 28mm bolted to the front.

Does it work for you?

If yes, then obviously you're okay with it.

If the camera's output is visually unacceptable (and that determination would be nearly impossible to lay at the feet of the presence or absence of software correction as a function of lens design), then whether you're okay or not with the correction is irrelevant.

The fact that nobody will be able to tell from looking at prints, seems to me to be the litmus.

A final observation: you either pay people to design, among other things, lenses, software, or both. It still requires that you pay people. And anyone who thinks that computers do things automatically, on their own, without constant review and assessment, particularly in the field of imaging, is living without the benefit of any real knowledge.

 

[Calzone]

He sure sounds like a used car dealer. And what kind of friend is this? No friend of mine would stand firm on a price and tell me to go find a better deal elsewhere. I'm quite surprised.

Ned,

What you imply as is true: used guitars are a lot like the used car market, but in Gary's business he holds the trump card because as far as rarity and condition Gary's products that he deals kinda corner the market, and that is the point.

I take no offence to Gary's manners or his "free advice," LOL. I have known Gary for several decades, I value his opinion, and we have conducted business on many occasions. Understand that similar to Leica Gary has a "boutique" business that does not necessarily appeal to the mass market.

When buying a vintage guitar from Gary would be like buying a rare vintage musclecar that is in remarkable original condition. Gary can get the premium on his pricing because he has the market kinda cornered.

Cal

 

[f16sunshine]

I suppose the bottom line is... Digital images do not exist without software.

 

[Calzone]

It looks like 80% of the participants don't mind. Sorry to be among the 20% who do.
I know software corrections are very common these days. There is always a draw back. I really love the fact that Leica lets me choose whether to use these corrections or turn them off. In fact I only use the corrections with the 25 biogon because of the visible purple shading.
Now the Q lens is halfway fisheye and doesn't cover the entire frame. There's not even a point to give me the choice to turn the corrections off. The lens becomes unusable without them.
If I was a pro photographer I wouldn't really care. The result would be most important to me. But if I was a pro I wouldn't use Leica in the first place. I would be using Nikon or Canon. But I'm not a pro and I use Leica because I like their philosophy and minimalist approach. Knowing how the Q lens works really kills the experience for me. You may not mind, it's your right, I mind.

Ed,

You are a sensible person, and I'm OK that you are different. No argument which is good or works for you.

I just don't like distortion(s) in some people's writing. Some people who don't like optical distortion(s) don't seem to mind distortions in their writing. LOL. That I find really funny. Double-LOL.

The "Q" is not for everyone...

Cal

 

[Lss]

I find it hilarious how many people are falling all over themselves to get one of these and/or praising the "innovation" (ha!), and then defending the price-point to boot.

I don't feel the same. This looks like a solid product with a lot of promise. I have used the Sony RX1R for quite a long time, and this camera may very well address its major weaknesses. The price to pay in terms of usability is added size. This camera is not about innovation, it is about delivering a complete product. I do hate the price, but this is based on my income level.

 

[Calzone]

I don't feel the same. This looks like a solid product with a lot of promise. I have used the Sony RX1R for quite a long time, and this camera may very well address its major weaknesses. The price to pay in terms of usability is added size. This camera is not about innovation, it is about delivering a complete product. I do hate the price, but this is based on my income level.

I don't have the money either, but the "Q" is an interesting camera if I did. Usibility and size are important to me too.

Cal