brt3 Posted October 31, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) One thing that interests me is the concept of how far Leica will take the aspect of lens integration on digital cameras. It already seems as though the correction handled in-camera gives the Leica lenses, at least potentially, a leg up. I can't imagine this happening quickly -- and Leica is different from most companies -- but I wonder if this is only the first step? I'm not sure what else could be handled in this regard and I realize that these are not electronic lenses (in the Nikon and Canon sense). Here's my "starter" suggestion -- after building each lens you run it through sophisticated testing, implant that information in a chip (and back it up in a central database), and use the curves and info from that chip to correct for the exact characteristics of that specific lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 31, 2009 Posted October 31, 2009 Hi brt3, Take a look here Lens to camera feedback: how far will Leica go?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jager Posted October 31, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 31, 2009 That's actually a great idea. Unfortunately, it would require an electronic interface between the lens and camera body, something the Leica M system today doesn't support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 31, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 31, 2009 It would also require a complete new range of lenses, probably with a much wider lens mount diameter it would be a completely new camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 31, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 31, 2009 ........and of no use whatsoever to film M users! (Andy posted at the same time, but yes it would really mean a new system). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted October 31, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 31, 2009 Interesting point. To me, there's a huge opportunity: with PCs becoming more and more powerful (and a pre-requisite to digital photography), one could run a lot of optimization software on pictures taken, perfect example is CornerFix; lots of optimization (like Leica lens optimization on the M8/9 etc.) could move from inside the camera's body into the post-processing PC. When reading recent comparison tests with M9 and Canon/Nikon cameras, you could see how difficult it is to draw a line between in-camery optimization (for CMOS, for example) and (semi-)raw output; to be perfectly just, one might need to compare perfectly post-processed pictures only... Best regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 31, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 31, 2009 The idea proposed is in my view the way Leica should go. This means as I understand it that: Aperture data needs sending from the lens to the camera and that means a simple chip has to be fitted to the lens. (In my view the alternative is to fit an extra lug which would mean a new M mount and then old lenses could not be used and that would be unacceptable to me at least!). Leica with its partners need to spend effort going forward on profiles for LR, and the curves suggested by the OP. My feeling is that best in class differentiators within the digital photography segment will increasingly be achieved by figuring out how to get "in camera RAW" to "exported RAW from the camera" to the eventual JPEG corrected image on a PC. It would be beneficial to me to better understand how the experts do this and the workflow that they use step by step from DNG exported by the camera using LR and Photoshop. If there is a good book or link please could someone send me it. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brt3 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share #7 Posted October 31, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) To me, there's a huge opportunity: with PCs becoming more and more powerful... one could run a lot of optimization software on pictures taken, perfect example is CornerFix; lots of optimization could move from inside the camera's body into the post-processing PC.l Michael -- I think you get where I'm coming from. It is my belief that this could be incorporated going forward while maintaining backwards compatibility. How about this; at the very least Leica could sell each lens with access to data that could then be used in one's computer to correct for any little imperfections -- automatically, if desired, when the photos are loaded into the computer. I think this is along the lines of what you're getting at. At some point perhaps this could be expanded to incorporate direct connection between the lens and the body, as suggested by BigSplash above. Either way our points are the same -- this is an opportunity, not a liability. If it can be done in a way that doesn't exclude old gear, this could be a feather in Leica's cap... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 31, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 31, 2009 The problem is - where to put the chip. Most modern lenses (i.e. designed in the AF era) have a "balloon-frame" construction - that is, they are a metal or plastic shell over an internal skeleton, analogous to homes with walls made of wallboard over a 2x4 skeleton. They have lots of hollow space to pull wiring. (OTOH balloon-frame homes tend to explode in tornadoes and other high winds) M lenses are still built as nested, threaded tubes of solid metal - a stone-wall approach that is strong (and heavy) but without any room for wiring, chips and internal AF motors and so on. Same for the M-mount Zeisses and Voigtlanders, BTW. See diagram - all that cross-hatched stuff is solid brass or aluminum. And most of what empty space there is in the mechanics - the black rectangles - gets filled up as the lens is focused and the helicals slide things around. It is one reason why Leica developed the 6-bit optical code system, which requires minimal invasion of the lens mechanics (pits a fraction of a mm deep in the lens flange), and more or less puts the chip in the camera instead. ------------- On a different aspect of the question, I'm not all that excited about digital corrections. For the moment I have turned off lens recognition in my M9, just to - you know - see what happens. (The M8 was an extreme case, what with external filters and massive cyan drift and so on). The problem with them is that your image is being "nannied" according to what some machine or engineer somewhere thinks is an appropriate correction - and I don't have a lot of confidence that those "nannies" are actually smarter than I am. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/102130-lens-to-camera-feedback-how-far-will-leica-go/?do=findComment&comment=1097504'>More sharing options...
jankap Posted October 31, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 31, 2009 The problem with them is that your image is being "nannied" according to what some machine or engineer somewhere thinks is an appropriate correction - and I don't have a lot of confidence that those "nannies" are actually smarter than I am. Those nannies do the last possible correction of the lens data. This has nothing to do with your artistic view. Don´t we want as less distorsion as possible? Of course one can also use a reading glass as a camera lens. Then the nannies will take a day off. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted October 31, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 31, 2009 One thing that interests me is the concept of how far Leica will take the aspect of lens integration on digital cameras. It already seems as though the correction handled in-camera gives the Leica lenses, at least potentially, a leg up. I can't imagine this happening quickly -- and Leica is different from most companies -- but I wonder if this is only the first step? I'm not sure what else could be handled in this regard and I realize that these are not electronic lenses (in the Nikon and Canon sense). Here's my "starter" suggestion -- after building each lens you run it through sophisticated testing, implant that information in a chip (and back it up in a central database), and use the curves and info from that chip to correct for the exact characteristics of that specific lens. Welcome to the forum; I'm convinced that Leica are really anxious to get back to you but they are in an important meeting with their accountants just now. Please do post any other suggestions you may have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted October 31, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 31, 2009 Michael -- I think you get where I'm coming from. It is my belief that this could be incorporated going forward while maintaining backwards compatibility. How about this; at the very least Leica could sell each lens with access to data that could then be used in one's computer to correct for any little imperfections -- automatically, if desired, when the photos are loaded into the computer. I think this is along the lines of what you're getting at. At some point perhaps this could be expanded to incorporate direct connection between the lens and the body, as suggested by BigSplash above. Either way our points are the same -- this is an opportunity, not a liability. If it can be done in a way that doesn't exclude old gear, this could be a feather in Leica's cap... Absolutely! - And it would even make existing bodies faster by pushing the image correction for lenses used further down the processing chain to the PC. Putting a chip for lens specific correction into the lens itself doesn't make any sense to me: how often do you have two lenses of exactly the same type? - If you assume that all lenses are always of different type (who would use two Noctilux 0.95/50 for the same body?) for each and every combination of (photographer x camera), you could still use Leica's 6-bit encoding (or manual selection) together with the bodies serial no. as a unique identifier _for_this_very_photographer_; he could then upload the required correction for all of _his_ lenses (and bodies) directly into the camera or (what brt3 and I would actually prefer) into his PC and do the correction job there... Best regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted October 31, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 31, 2009 One thing that interests me is the concept of how far Leica will take the aspect of lens integration on digital cameras. It already seems as though the correction handled in-camera gives the Leica lenses, at least potentially, a leg up. I can't imagine this happening quickly -- and Leica is different from most companies -- but I wonder if this is only the first step? I'm not sure what else could be handled in this regard and I realize that these are not electronic lenses (in the Nikon and Canon sense). Here's my "starter" suggestion -- after building each lens you run it through sophisticated testing, implant that information in a chip (and back it up in a central database), and use the curves and info from that chip to correct for the exact characteristics of that specific lens. Isn't this what Leica did with the R system and the ROM lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted November 1, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 1, 2009 Andy Piper you say that you have switched off the corrections that engineers have made as you feel that you can do this better than the engineers rough fit. Surely the benefit of what is being propsed here is that if you shoot in uncompressed DNG (or perhaps even "optionally" a step back ...a rough RAW camera sensor file) then in post production you could select: DNG uncompressed to Adobe RGB or JPEG fine As above with own profiles As above with Leica supplied lens corrction curves ..or any combination plus of course user defined and generated special profiles. The beauty is that the basic data is never altered within LR today, and that means the basic image can always be upgraded, or improved on. If you agree this then we are missing: The lens curves for each Leica lens at different apertures A way to use the lens curves in post processing (ie need some software or a patch for LR) Various profiles for different situations. .it seems to me Comments? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 1, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 1, 2009 I can remember a time when Leica lenses were the best in the world, without all this electronic mumbo-jumbo, necessary to "correct" them. When did they stop making these lenses? Have I been sold a pup? Seems to me that the more you fiddle with an image in software, the less reason there is to pay the Leicageld premium in the first place. Or am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 1, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 1, 2009 ...Seems to me that the more you fiddle with an image ins software, the less reason there is to pay the Leicageld premium in the first place... There is a risk that firmwares/softwares will substitue their own fingerprint to that of the lenses for sure. Now both our experiences tend to prove that Leica lenses don't loose their character on third party bodies so far and that electronic is not necessarily our worst ennemy from this viewpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 1, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 1, 2009 Reading threads like these makes me wonder how on earth anyone ever managed to produce a halfway decent photo using film! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted November 1, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 1, 2009 Just how much 'improvement' in final image quality would such an implementation actually achieve that could not be sorted out in post processing? Seems to me like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and a potentially very expensive one too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted November 1, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 1, 2009 I can remember a time when Leica lenses were the best in the world, without all this electronic mumbo-jumbo, necessary to "correct" them. When did they stop making these lenses? Have I been sold a pup? Seems to me that the more you fiddle with an image in software, the less reason there is to pay the Leicageld premium in the first place. Or am I missing something? In my view YES Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 1, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 1, 2009 Come on then. Spill the beans. Tell me what I am missing. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 1, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 1, 2009 Seems to me that the more you fiddle with an image in software, the less reason there is to pay the Leicageld premium in the first place. Or am I missing something? No, Andy, you are not. I wonder sometimes why some people who post here ever bought into Leica in the first place. Taking this to it's logical conclusion, let's all just use identical lenses on identical bodies. Massive economies of scale will result, of course, because everyone will buy exactly the same kit. There will be no need for anything else, because everything will be done in post processing. Want that Lomo colour craziness? Click on the "Lomography" icon on your editing software. Want that Leica glow? Click on... Even better, just load your "perfect" image up into the Cloud, and let the viewer decide how they want to see it... Perfect. Sterile, sterile, sterile. Why not just outsource the whole thing? Just buy a postcard. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.