Michael Markey
Veteran
Never do I but it ticks a few boxes for me too.
Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?
- Thread starter Avotius
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 222
- Views 10K
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Thank you Cal 🙂
I think it would be more sensible to accept that there are differing views on this matter. I don't think anyone is right or wrong, some prefer optical corrections others tolerate or even prefer software corrections. Both have drawbacks. 🙂
The Q is a fantastic camera. I might end up getting one despite my reservations about the lens. It would have been perfect for me if the lens was more traditionally designed.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Sparrow
Veteran
... and I suppose even after proved they exist, you would need to prove whatever perceived their existence was itself conscious .. and of course possessed free will when it perceived that proof 🙂
Aristophanes
Well-known
It's f/1.7. For its aperture and FL it's actually pretty small.
The price point is 90% brand mystique, not engineering prowess. You will identical if not superior output on much cheaper cameras.
But that's not the point of Leica, is it?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Um, digital images cannot be created without machines complex enough and with proper instructions to do what's necessary. Once created, and printed, they're like any other photographs.
I haven't seen any of my photographs passing the Turing Test yet, although some seem quite alive and vibrant to my eye. 🙂
G
Corran
Well-known
No argument from me.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Pretty much the only guy who got my "admire the design of the lens" reference.
If most who lavish such anthropomorphic concepts on their partners, spouses, fellow men and women, etc, there would be a lot fewer cameras sold.
Well, your first sentence shows one of its differences vs. other cameras in this class. That's the other issue, there aren't many other options in this class.
Now, if we start comparing it vs. non-alike cameras, of course we can do better price wise (and quality wise) than Leica. It was true in the film days too. However, while brand mystique is a large part of Leica these days... this is a unique camera with regard to it being FF, having a fast 28mm lens, and having a M type shape. Ergonomics are important to some and that is why this camera appeals to Leica fans that actually use these camera for photography. I'm not a big fan of cameras with grips. I actually like the soap bar shape.
For me, it is too much $$$ for what it will offer my photography vs. what I already use. However, I do like it and it is unique (for the moment anyway).
ferider
Veteran
Andy,
it's more than software. Let me explain:
Let's assume the distortion correction is done for every frame, both when emptying the buffer, and when showing it at > 40 Hz in the LCD. Say the camera can manipulate 5 frames per second (just picking a realistic number).
For a color 24 MPixel image, this means the camera needs to process 360 Million 14bit values per second. Say you pick a modern Intel CPU to do that in software (at 3.4 GHz); that CPU would have less than 10 cycles to manipulate a grey pixel. Even if you pick the most simple distortion algorithm, that would not be enough "just to do in software". Also note, that the CPU has to do other things in parallel, like DNG encryption, etc.
Most of the distortion correction must be done in hardware. Enter the camera's image processor; I read that the Maestro II was built together with Fujitsu. The latest Fujitsu Image processor specs I could find included this:
Fujitsu MB86S22AA:
- CPU: ARM Cortex-A5MP (see also http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a5.php)
- Maximum image processing speed equivalent to12fps at 24M pixels
- Hardware assist capable of feature extraction
- Improved lens correction, lens distortion correction, lens resolution correction
- Accelerated multi-frame operation
- High speed and intelligent bus arbitration
I assume the Maestro II has similar technology. Maybe the Fuji Finepix cameras, too ? (the X100 also does in camera distortion correction)
So, Leica picked an algorithm that they could execute on the Maestro II at 360 MHz per 14bit grey pixel. Then they optimized the 28/1.7 lens to be as well corrected as possible with that algorithm. I still assume that it's basically a "reverse" fish-eye correction, easy to implement using the Maestro, and easy to account for in the optical design. Good fish-eye lenses are not cheap, BTW.
Interesting that the Leica Q was only possible to implement due to Japanese image processor design, using a key IP block developed in the US, and German-designed optics, no ? 🙂
Roland
f16sunshine
Moderator
Hehe....
You are correct..or rather.... I Perceived correctness (whatever that means.... Or doesn't).
Careful Stewart
Humor detection appears to be set to ultra low on most forum member browsers these days 😉
f16sunshine
Moderator
Thanks Roland
I get it. My point was.... It's digital and therefore requires software.
Why is additional code to "correct" on aspect less or more offensive than any of the rest.
Again... I have no trouble with in camera lens correction.
It's just a part of the whole delivery system.
Why the fuss?
I get it. My point was.... It's digital and therefore requires software.
Why is additional code to "correct" on aspect less or more offensive than any of the rest.
Again... I have no trouble with in camera lens correction.
It's just a part of the whole delivery system.
Why the fuss?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Andy,
There is a lot of funny stuff happening on this forum. I for one laugh a lot. Lots of entertainment for me. LOL.😀
Some people take themselves too seriously. Whatever happened to being humble???
Cal
Sparrow
Veteran
... this is true sadly, even satire can pass unnoticed ... ironically
dave lackey
Veteran
H
Hunter S Thompson
Guest
Let's try another example, this time stepping away from Leica.
Nikon made the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT lens. This is a very famous lens designed for ultra low coma. It achieved this level of performance by using a hand ground aspherical lens which was very expensive to produce. The lens cost something like $2500 if I remember right.
To all those who approve of software correction: Is it acceptable for Nikon to just use a regular "off the shelf 58mm lens" that cost $400 or so, produces massive amounts of coma, but has that all removed with software and for Nikon to charge the same price.
Would you still pay $2500 for this lens (assuming you'd pay that amount for the optically corrected version)?
Aristophanes
Well-known
1. To be blunt optical engineering has become a lower cost game in recent years where very high-quality output can be achieved at much lower prices than ever before. It's a struggle right now for optical companies to justify some of the prices they are charging (Fuji...I'm looking at you). This is WITHOUT software engineering for correction.
2. What does it matter how distortions are reduced? the sensor era is unforgiving compared to film. The precision now requires engineering specs far greater than film era products needed or could ever achieve.
Sensors require different approaches t optics. Plain and simple. That's been known for ages, especially as sensor pixel density and signal noise have increased/decreased respectively.
I don't think anyone here quite knows what your gripe is all about. To get FF 28mm/1.7 into a single handheld, fixed lens Leica with EVF the optical form factor had to be adjusted and obviously they engineered a reasonable distortion correction in software to accommodate. Comparing a 50/1.2 designed for film to a 28/1.7 designed for a sensor is not equivalence. You are dragging up a straw man to achieve some sort of "optical purity" evangelism.
ferider
Veteran
An honest answer: No.
First-order Distortions, Vignetting and some Chromatic Aberrations (lateral fringes) can be corrected in post. And, as I said above, due to necessary speed (frames per sec) the Q has to do it in hardware, not in software. A P&S AF camera can also minimize focus shift (think Hexar AF).
Post-processing can not correct Spherical Aberration, Coma, Astigmatism, Curvature of Field and non-lateral chromatic aberrations. The lens designer still has to minimize these (for nice bokeh).
A well-corrected fish-eye lens can still be very expensive. Think about the Nikkor 6mm/2.8.
Roland.
codester80
A Touch of Light
It should also be mentioned that you're not buying the lens alone but as part of a complete photographic tool. You're paying for the lens, body, and all the electronic wizardry packed into the body. As has been mentioned many times already in this thread almost ALL digital bodies can or do some correction, especially those of the fixed lens type. And yet it is only when Lecia dares to do it that people begin to have a problem with this.
I'll throw fuel on the fire and suggest those concerned with distortion correction should consider software adjusts for contrast, chromatic abrasion, etc., to also compensate for subpar, (as some would put it) lens designs in cameras. I don't know too many photographers willing to turn off all image adjustment settings in the camera AND not make corrections in Lightroom. There is no such thing as a pure lens in digital photography. There never was in film-based photography, although there is an argument for saying there was less in the way between the lens, capture media, and final output, and these were at least under the control of the photographer. Digital photography is special because it can take less than great image-making hardware and through manipulation of digital data with power software correct errors and produce outstanding results. Photographers have figured this out as anyone cruising the auction sites can attest as prices for what were considered ho-hum lenses are being snatched up as "legacy" glass that produce wonderful results.
Leica has finally realized they don't have to over engineer a lens. Instead they can rely on software to fix minor design flaws. This allows Leica to offer a product that is reasonably priced (for Leica) but continues to produce Leica quality images (whatever that may be, don't get me started). If Leica put a perfectly engineered 28mm 1.7 lens on the Q the price would most likely double and all we would hear from the naysayers is how the cost makes the Q an outlier as the M bodies are the same price and because interchangeable lenses is more flexible than the Q.
I'll throw fuel on the fire and suggest those concerned with distortion correction should consider software adjusts for contrast, chromatic abrasion, etc., to also compensate for subpar, (as some would put it) lens designs in cameras. I don't know too many photographers willing to turn off all image adjustment settings in the camera AND not make corrections in Lightroom. There is no such thing as a pure lens in digital photography. There never was in film-based photography, although there is an argument for saying there was less in the way between the lens, capture media, and final output, and these were at least under the control of the photographer. Digital photography is special because it can take less than great image-making hardware and through manipulation of digital data with power software correct errors and produce outstanding results. Photographers have figured this out as anyone cruising the auction sites can attest as prices for what were considered ho-hum lenses are being snatched up as "legacy" glass that produce wonderful results.
Leica has finally realized they don't have to over engineer a lens. Instead they can rely on software to fix minor design flaws. This allows Leica to offer a product that is reasonably priced (for Leica) but continues to produce Leica quality images (whatever that may be, don't get me started). If Leica put a perfectly engineered 28mm 1.7 lens on the Q the price would most likely double and all we would hear from the naysayers is how the cost makes the Q an outlier as the M bodies are the same price and because interchangeable lenses is more flexible than the Q.
edge100
Well-known
Mamiya 43/4.5 is pretty close...
