T, Leica zoom lens debacle

Vobluda said:
Take any lens and any camera raw and run it through raw SW that opens the fiel as it is without any corrections.
For example I use Raw Photo Processor on Mac (SW is Mac only, freeware).
Sony A7 raw when open as it is, without HEAVY in camera processing, is a raw fun 🙂
Usually under exposed, everything way off.. The flange distance is just too short. If you look at the lens via "pure" raw, the FE 35mm 2.8 and FE 55mm 1.8 are joke of the lens, unperfect in everything.
So I dont think that it is Leica to blame, it is the only way to go with short flange distance..
Click to expand...

The short mount registration has nothing whatever to do with lens aberrations.

The reason these lenses have so many aberrations is that they are being designed to be compact, light weight, and inexpensive to manufacture as the first priority, and for the reasons as Roger Hicks and I posted previously in this same thread.

Once a lens designer starts to assume lens correction in software after capture, there's a whole host of things they can do in the optics (that make the overall system work better, cost less, and be more compact) without having to worry about the simple corrections that software can take care of perfectly. Only a stupid lens designer would not be overjoyed to have the additional freedom that post-capture software correction permits.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Exactly.

Correcting simple spherical barrel distortion and light fall-off in the corners (not vignetting ... for the pedant in me) are two of the easiest, least-lossy corrections you can make, while fixing longitudinal chromatic aberration, mustache or waved-shaped rectilinear distortion, astigmatism, coma, etc, are FAR more difficult.

Just like in many other locked-loop auto-correction feedback systems, you leave in the simple aberrations while fixing the near-impossible ones because it improves the overall quality of the imaging system. These lenses will only ever be used on the camera(s) for which they are designed, so it is only the total system that matters.

It's a wonder that all these "Leica enthusiasts" and "professional reviewers" are unwilling to give Leica the benefit of the doubt and believe that they know what they're doing with respect to imaging systems and quality, look at the results rather than infer absurd things from marketing statements.

G
Click to expand...
Dear Godfrey,

Highlight 1: For a given definition of "vignetting".

Highlight 2: As I've said before, Leica should hand the business over to the "experts" on the camera forums who all know FAR more about optics, sensor design, software, marketing, etc., than ANYONE who's been in the business for a few decades.

Addendum, based on your most recent post:there are very few stupid professional lens designers, but plenty of amateur "experts" in design, marketing, engineering... It would be interesting to see how many people with genuine expertise in anything would react to the kind of ill-informed advice in their own field that is routinely dispensed on the internet.

Cheers,

R,
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Godfrey,

Highlight 1: For a given definition of "vignetting".

Highlight 2: As I've said before, Leica should hand the business over to the "experts" on the camera forums who all know FAR more about optics, sensor design, software, marketing, etc., than ANYONE who's been in the business for a few decades.

Addendum, based on your most recent post:there are very few stupid professional lens designers, but plenty of amateur "experts" in design, marketing, engineering... It would be interesting to see how many people with genuine expertise in anything would react to the kind of ill-informed advice in their own field that is routinely dispensed on the internet.

Cheers,

R,
Click to expand...

As a doctor I routinely deal with ill-informed internet advice (and advice from friends, and pseudoprofessionals). It needs to be handled with tact and reality needs to be framed to agree as closely as possible with the misinformation. Humans don't change their assumptions easily.

As for the 'debacle', no one has suggested that the T lenses should be without software correction. What has been suggested is that the standard Leica briefing suggests that there are no software corrections when that is wrong and would have been a foolish move on Leica's part if they had gone down that road.

I wonder how many people consider the optical performance of their own eyes? Eyes are heavily distorted and have extremely poor definition except for one small area. It is all corrected in post processing.
 
Scrambler said:
..What has been suggested is that the standard Leica briefing suggests that there are no software corrections when that is wrong and would have been a foolish move on Leica's part if they had gone down that road. ...
Click to expand...

... If it was actually their error in the first place. So far, all the discussion of this "debacle" seems to stem from the reportage of one source, DPR.

G
 
Scrambler said:
As a doctor I routinely deal with ill-informed internet advice (and advice from friends, and pseudoprofessionals). It needs to be handled with tact and reality needs to be framed to agree as closely as possible with the misinformation. Humans don't change their assumptions easily. . .
Click to expand...
Which must be a bit of a strain at times. Those who know or understand least are often the most strident in propagating their misconceptions. A certain type of Zonie springs to mind.

I have long said, "Never trust anyone whose vocabulary does not include the phrase, I could be wrong."

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Bessa T Impressions I
Replies
3
Views
933
Diggin99
Diggin99
M
Anthony Lane on the Leica in New Yorker
Replies
4
Views
2K
xayraa33
xayraa33
Back
Top Bottom