Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?

[mfunnell]

so...is the image quality good or not?

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

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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.

I have not seen a reasonable answer to this question.

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.

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.

Some will buy this camera and be happy with it, while it clearly isn't the camera for you. Problem solved.

- Murray

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

I just wish SOMEONE could answer this question. That no one can is VERY telling to me that the answer is quite difficult.

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....

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Nobody is telling you you have to accept this.

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]

I just wish SOMEONE could answer this question. That no one can is VERY telling to me that the answer is quite difficult.

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]

I just wish SOMEONE could answer this question. That no one can is VERY telling to me that the answer is quite difficult.

Dante,

All I'm asking is where is the benefit for ME in this Q system.

Nobody can, because there is no benefit to the Q for you.

You're on record here as disliking digital:

Film is so much more pleasurable to shoot with so I've let most of my digital cameras collect dust. I don't know if I'm more concerned about the results or the process of shooting anymore. I'm leaning towards the shooting experience but I enjoy viewing the results sometime after the actual shooting. Even when I shoot digital now, I don't like looking at the images for a while. I feel like I just saw the photos when I took them so they need some time to be more interesting to look at. Film gives me the time because I'm always excited to see what that roll of film has on it and sometimes even forgot I took that picture. There was a time when it was almost 100% digital, but now film has made a major comeback in my photography.

This. A big +100 to this post!

[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:

I guess an EVF is OK for snapshots, but I do spend minutes looking through the viewfinder, making compositional decisions. Spending minutes looking at those tiny TV's is very frustrating and headache inducing.

You lose all of the characteristics of a RF when you switch to a tiny TV set. Not very Leica-ish.

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

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Nobody can, because there is no benefit to the Q for you.

OK, where is the benefit for anyone then? Forget me and answer for yourself then.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

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.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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.

+1000.

Very well said.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

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.

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 🙂

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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?

You stated that I was anti-digital. I proved beyond a doubt that your statement is factually incorrect.

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.

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.

Always in a way which seems oppositional, and I don't know why that is.

There's no reason why you should disclose that

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.

, 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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

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.

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]

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).

 

[Dante_Stella]

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

 

[mfunnell]

You stated something that was absolutely wrong about my position and I proved conclusively that you were in error.

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