c.poulton
Well-known
I don't know... I get all the arguments for software in-camera correction, but somehow, on some level, it all seems wrong.
Are you OK with lens corrections on Leica Q?
- Thread starter Avotius
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 222
- Views 10K
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Speaking as someone that'll never be able to afford, nor be able to justify, paying multi-thousands of dollars for a lens, I'm perfectly happy accepting whatever software solutions Fuji wants to throw at their X-body/lens combinations. Hey... they produce stunning results! Who cares how they do it. 🙂
Gid
Well-known
+1 ......................
thegman
Veteran
Sure, why not. If it's an interchangeable lens camera, then maybe it becomes a bit different, but as fixed lens compact, no, wouldn't mind a bit.
Black
Photographer.
The RX1 has similar corrective software in camera and works very well. What does it really matter. I mean really?
pvdhaar
Peter
Can't afford one, but otherwise it would depend..
Used as a practical imaging device, then yes please, throw in those lens corrections to get the best out of the whole package..
On the other hand, if it comes to bragging rights, then no; imagine forking out 4250 and then constantly running into people who point out that it's not got Leica's most proper glass in front as it requires the software hoopla to function 🙁
Used as a practical imaging device, then yes please, throw in those lens corrections to get the best out of the whole package..
On the other hand, if it comes to bragging rights, then no; imagine forking out 4250 and then constantly running into people who point out that it's not got Leica's most proper glass in front as it requires the software hoopla to function 🙁
It might not be the argument, but my question still remains. If there aren't any, then why does it matter?
willie_901
Veteran
Welcome to the twenty first century! The
There inherent problems with software based optical corrections can be trivial or serious.
o the image is cropped to some degree
o frame edge resolution degrades
o in some cases, higher-order distortions are not corrected
Better optics require less correction, which minimizes these disadvantages/issues. Sophisticated distortion modeling (high-order corrections) is important.
Well-impimented distortion correction is an asset and would make the cameras price-point even more attractive to me.
There inherent problems with software based optical corrections can be trivial or serious.
o the image is cropped to some degree
o frame edge resolution degrades
o in some cases, higher-order distortions are not corrected
Better optics require less correction, which minimizes these disadvantages/issues. Sophisticated distortion modeling (high-order corrections) is important.
Well-impimented distortion correction is an asset and would make the cameras price-point even more attractive to me.
seakayaker1
Well-known
I have bought a few prints in my lifetime, I really do not know which camera or lens the photographer used when making the image. It was the final result that mattered.
...... also if you do not like something then do not buy it or participate in the activity.
Bottom line with any corporation is profit.
...... also if you do not like something then do not buy it or participate in the activity.
Bottom line with any corporation is profit.
Pioneer
Veteran
Wow!
The hardware directs light to the sensor, after that the software takes over.
Digital photography is all about software manipulation.
It is the output that counts.
There is still film, which is all about chemical manipulation. 🙂
The hardware directs light to the sensor, after that the software takes over.
Digital photography is all about software manipulation.
It is the output that counts.
There is still film, which is all about chemical manipulation. 🙂
zuiko85
Veteran
This is the type of thing that if Leica simply applied the correction as a matter of overall function and did not mention it at all then the users would say "what a great lens", there would be no discussion and everyone would be happy. Sometimes you don't have to tell everything you know.
DNG
Film Friendly
My Nikon 24mm f/2.8 has NEAR "0" distortion
No distortion correction in Lr or CC
Fuji X-E2/Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ais CFC (fov 35mm)
2015 Classic Street Photography by Peter Arbib: My Classic Street Photography, on Flickr
Nikon FE, Nikon 24mm f/2.8 Ais CFC (fov 24mm)
Fuji Neopan 400
005 Buildings N-FE--N24mm-FUN400 at 2 by Peter Arbib -My Gerneral Galleries, on Flickr
DNG
Film Friendly
Yeah, but unless it's corrected in JPG mode, they should of gone old school, and correct it better optically...
But, f/1.7 is a lot of glass...
Q?
How is the Leica 28mm/2 on a film camera as far as distortion?
The glass is tad smaller being f/2, not f/1.7
But, f/1.7 is a lot of glass...
Q?
How is the Leica 28mm/2 on a film camera as far as distortion?
The glass is tad smaller being f/2, not f/1.7
NeeZee
Well-known
If you are OK with a camera using software to calculate your exposure, monitor your battery, record and store your pictures etc. then why on earth would distortion correction be a problem? To me that sounds just like another 'how much technology can I use and still 'keep it real" ' - debate...
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
And of course, the resultant image is the elephant in the room. That's what's real. Not the minutiae of process.
But there are many for whom the so-called technical purity, for lack of a better phrase, is paramount. Best to be gentle with them. After all, whether pinhole onto wet-plate or CCD/CMOS, it's all "technology" isn't it?
Avotius
Some guy
Well it seems the masses have spoken and a majority of people are ok with such lens corrections but it seems there are still many to whom it is less than desirable.
Just curious, does anyone on the "technical purity" side of the fence find it a bit odd that Leica, the company that likes to prop itself up on its technical mastery went in this direction?
Just curious, does anyone on the "technical purity" side of the fence find it a bit odd that Leica, the company that likes to prop itself up on its technical mastery went in this direction?
burancap
Veteran
Honestly, I am not sure what side is the "technical purity" side. I can say (again) that in 2015, technical mastery TODAY is the generation of algorithms, etc. to augment a quality, but production-affordable component into a finished product, not slide-ruling a piece of molten sand into submission.
The Q is Leica's first proper step into not just a viable, but an absolutely sustainable future as a modern company.
Avotius
Some guy
Indeed. Your point is well received Jeff. In my mind Leica always had this traditional feel that they liked to bank on and now they are changing a lot. Kind of like people and Porches 911's where the subject of changes and variations can bring people on one side or the other. I am guessing more and more camera companies will be heading in this direction with their non SLR cameras so its just the way of the future to be accepted as such.
PS. Can you imagine non corrected view on an SLR? Fisheye like distortions making people dizzy!
PS. Can you imagine non corrected view on an SLR? Fisheye like distortions making people dizzy!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Jeff,
To riff off Pioneer's post above, I try to limit post processing as much as possible, and I try to maximize the image quality and optimize the contrast/saturation at time of image capture so I don't have to do it in post.
On one hand I still have my 28 Cron and my MM9 to remain "pure" if I want to, but I'm thinking that I don't mind the "Q's" management of distortion. It would be a luxury product bought for it's compact size and because 28 FOV is kinda important to me. If Leica comes out with a 50mm version I would be pretty much compelled to buy that version too because 28 and 50 is generally what I carry in two rigged M-bodies and on my MM9 generally it is either a 28 Cron or a 50 Lux ASPH.
In a way if Leica comes out with a 50 version a "Q-28" and a "Q-50" might serve me better than say buying a M-240 and sharing my glass as I do on my MM9.
Oh-well I say to the in camera correction.
Cal
