Leica T performs digital lens correction , a claim by dpreview.com

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So we have a digital camera that makes, or suggests, corrections, and some people think it is a bad thing. Such people usually look to lenses of the film era where no such corrections were possible.

 

I cannot imagine a more inappropriate comparison of film lenses to lenses for digital cameras.

 

You are in with digital or you are out.

 

The design of lenses for digital is tightly coupled to digital science. Why would anyone develop optics for their digital camera without considering in-camera firmware to complement optics? What possible rationale is there to NOT implement such?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[IkarusJohn]

I can't believe I've waded through this thread - what a storm in a tea-cup!

 

Sure, perfect optical correction in film is important, but remember that film is way more forgiving than a digital sensor above 10MP, or thereabouts. It's also a little dishonest to say that M lenses are only corrected for vignetting and colour shift. If you've ever used lens profiles in LightRoom, the correction for distortion is obvious for pretty much all M lenses. To complain about digital corrections in a digital file is completely disingenuous.

 

So, Leica said that they have tried to achieve optical correction, rather than relying on in camera software. I think that is still probably true, despite the evidence of barrel distortion at the wide end of their zoom lens. Who really cares? This isn't the only Leica (or Zeiss) lens to have barrel distortion. You can't use this lens on any camera other than the T camera, so when exactly will it be an issue? The PDF file is actually only about 29 or 30mm (equivalent) rather than 28mm - hardly a deal breaker; and the fact that the files are smaller than the 16MP the sensor can capture? Hold the press! This is not going to matter a jot to users of this camera, I suspect.

 

I had (soon to be past tense) the Zeiss 24-70mm zoom on my A7, and if you read the reviews (Tim Ashley in particular), it isn't too flash shot wide. In real life, the fact that I couldn't get the AF to work reliably was way more critical - especially as I couldn't get the hopeless manual focus ring to work either.

 

There may be critical issues with the Leica T zoom lens (I really don't know - it's a walkabout lens), but this really isn't one that's going to keep me awake at night. It's a digital camera - fully digital. Who cares where the corrections are made. It's the file that comes out the other end that counts, and we all play with those files anyway.

 

Cheers

John

[mjh]

I always wondered why the concept of DNG somehow being pitched as a universal format still requires OS support and software upgrades for new models.

DNG is universal in the sense that raw files in any other format can be mapped to DNG with no loss of information – that at least is the intent. But since camera vendors always come up with something new – like new ways of arranging the sensor pixels or their colour filters –, DNG needs to be kept up to date just so it stays universal.

 

Still these updates are few and far between. The latest version DNG 1.4 was introduced in 2012 and the introduction of opcodes in the previous version DNG 1.3 happened 5 years ago. DNG is an extremely flexible format so it doesn’t have to change all the time; for example when Leica introduced the M Monochrom, DNG already provided a format for storing monochrome image data. But because of that flexibility it isn’t easy to implement all the possible permutations of features covered in the DNG specs, so some raw converters supporting DNG in general and the M9 in particular failed to support the M Monochrom initially (as expected, Lightroom and ACR did).

 

When raw converters need to be updated for every new camera model that is not because new cameras always introduced new raw file formats to be supported; rather it is the cameras and their specific characteristics requiring support.

 

The reason updates to a raw converter may come in the shape of updates for the OS rather than the application software is that the vendor (Apple in this case) may decide to integrate the raw conversion capability into the OS, with the advantage that any app can access this functionality.

[xalo]

There is this soda ad I had to keep thinking about through this thread (I must have missed a page or two).

 

Uma Thurmann (dressed in silk, hair hand brushed for at least 45 minutes):

 

"Hey, what did you expect?"

 

Cheers,

Alexander

[AlanG]

 

...The reason updates to a raw converter may come in the shape of updates for the OS rather than the application software is that the vendor (Apple in this case) may decide to integrate the raw conversion capability into the OS, with the advantage that any app can access this functionality.

 

Thanks but you have to wait for Apple to do it. And do all of the apps tie in or do some use their own methods?

 

Please explain why camera companies and few raw software vendors support the open Windows Color System and Windows Imaging Component to make using raw files and color management easier without needing to wait for software updates. (Just simple codecs from the camera manufacturer, Microsoft, or third parties whenever a new camera comes out.)

[Guest jvansmit]

An interesting thing about the lenses, is that they appear to have a 50 year soldering life (circle with 50 in it) - I've checked every other lens I have and it says 10 years. They are clearly solid and well made pieces of kit.

 

I don't mean to be impolite but your premise is incorrect.

 

The circle is not about 'soldering life' or being 'solid' or 'well made'. It's the China RoHS label, and indicates the Environment Friendly Use Period.

 

The EFUP mark is a requirement for importation of electronic goods into China, and the numeral (10 or 50 etc), indicates how long certain hazardous substances will not leak from the product while it is in normal use

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fortunately the corrections are not applied to the raw data, but carried in a sidecar file, so if you use another raw converter than ACR they will not be implemented.

I think we need to look to Adobe to allow the user to deselect the correction.

 

Wait a sec: if corrections are applied elsewhere, and one can retrieve the full unaffected file, then Dpreview is wrong, or just telling us half the truth.

Leica simply gives you the option of untouched pure files and/or files with a bit of digital filtering.

[diogenis]

It looks like it has a way to read the 6 bit code but I see no mention of that info being collected or used in the adapter's description, "The adapter fully supports functions like exposure metering, aperture priority mode and manual settings." Basically all this says is it mounts the M lenses and has no other connection between the lens and the body.

 

While looking for info about the adapter, I was trapped by the prose on Leica's T site.

 

You gotta love the sheer enthusiasm that Leica projects for all of the "amazing" things they accomplished here. I love the over the top marketing hype but even the hardest core Leica lovers must have to suspend disbelief and just buy in. They are certainly trying to get people to emotionally bond with this and not question if anything left out will be missed.

 

"– and how Leica and the Leica T break entirely new ground in the world of photography. "

 

"Aluminium for the body. Pictures for the heart"

 

"Absolute perfection is only achieved when nothing more can be omitted." So how come they didn't omit the flash? Wifi control from a cell phone is now essential... especially with no wired or IR remote release available.

 

"Minimised, yet so perfect. Never before has taking pictures been this easy."

Alan, I am sorry that you feel this way, but the majority of users demand quality products with modern design.

If Leica ever produces an Mm(odern) designed by Audi, obviously in aluminum unibody and screen ala T, while at the same time keeping the rangefinder, then that would be amazing.

Leica T is revolution just for that. It's about time Leica moves on its product line. Leica T shows the way

 

Edit: Obviously, Leica and every manufacturer goes on it's own not giving a rat's ass, which simply is how it must be done with τηειρ product line. Personally I feel confident after the T is out, that Leica has a laιd out strategy, will to thrive and very good management. Leica T was a bold move. More will come!

[earleygallery]

Wait a sec: if corrections are applied elsewhere, and one can retrieve the full unaffected file, then Dpreview is wrong, or just telling us half the truth.

Leica simply gives you the option of untouched pure files and/or files with a bit of digital filtering.

 

I don't think they do, rather the software they provide will apply correction whatever file you use. The cynic in me would say that they were trying to hide something..........

[jaapv]

Afaik only in ACR, not other raw converters.

[Peter H]

I don't think they do, rather the software they provide will apply correction whatever file you use. The cynic in me would say that they were trying to hide something..........

 

James, I really don't get this line you're taking, about wanting a lens so "good" no corrections are needed.

 

What does it matter?

 

Or are you really just arguing about Leica pricing?

[jaapv]

I don't think they do, rather the software they provide will apply correction whatever file you use. The cynic in me would say that they were trying to hide something..........

Well, maybe not exactly hide, rather correct...

[earleygallery]

James, I really don't get this line you're taking, about wanting a lens so "good" no corrections are needed.

 

What does it matter?

 

Or are you really just arguing about Leica pricing?

 

Hi Peter,

 

Are you saying extreme barrel/pincushion distortion on a lens doesn't matter?

 

It's nothing to do with pricing, although generally speaking cheaper lenses perform less well of course.

[jaapv]

It certainly does, but as I said before, it is not stupid to "collect" all residual aberrations in distortion, which is relatively easy to eliminate digitally resulting in a lens that is better corrected overall.

In the past the trick was to hide aberrations in a wavy plane of focus for instance, as that is not normally apparent in a standard photograph, but a pain when it becomes critical.

[pgk]

Are you saying extreme barrel/pincushion distortion on a lens doesn't matter

I'm not a lens designer but its worth bearing in mind that a lens designer is probably very well informed about the parameters which he/she is designing to. A few are obvious (such as the physical size of the lens), but others may not be (the ideal angle of incidence on the sensor for example, and perhaps at all focal lengths). I can appreciate that there may just be very good technical reasons for adjusting/correcting some parameters which leave an easily corrected 'problem', such as distortion, alone so that it can be dealt with by software. It might just be the best compromise to produce 'best' image quality for the T given the other parameters.

 

The problem being discussed here is one of attitude and interpretation. Most of us are wary of optical characteristics which we have always considered unacceptable (significant distortion) and many apparently cannot equate software adjustments as being a necessary step in the 'optical' process. In reality its the final image which is important, and whilst I can see why this storm in a teacup has occurred, I wonder if the real problem lies in the assumption that perfection can be achieved in 'traditional' ways, and it is considered that using modern techniques such as software adjustment and outsourced manufacture should really be accompanied by lower prices because both should be significantly cheaper (which may not actually be the case).

[lct]

Problem with those corrections is interpolation they generate hence losses of resolution. Now who cares if IQ meets your expectations?

[jaapv]

Very true. The possibility of software-driven corrections has changed the whole game and brought the image results of lenses in general to a higher level. It used to be that the designer had to make compromises and make the as unobtrusive as possible, especially with higher order aberrations, now they can shift the compromise and use digital corrections. It is in reality a good thing, even if abhorrent to purists. The new compromise is loss of resolution through digital correction vs optical quality loss.

[rosuna]

Problem with those corrections is interpolation they generate hence losses of resolution. Now who cares if IQ meets your expectations?

 

It is bit strange. Leica has changed their "purist" approach to photography, which was the raison d'être of Leica. Expensive products, but different.

 

An example is high optical correction in lenses, but another one is elimination of low pass filter on sensors or even use of CCD instead of CMOS.

 

The point was that other manufacturers apply software, low pass filters and CMOS with strong image processing, but we are different, we pursue the purest possible approach... etc.

 

The S system was presented as a system designed for the best performance of optics, in contrast with Hasselblad/Fuji, which apply "corrections". The "Leica" lenses for Panasonic cameras were more expensive because Leica asks for higher optical standards. And so on.

 

This provided an implicit -but partial- justification for the difference in prices and it reinforced the brand and the myth behind it.

 

I understand the Leica T is a different product (just like the compacts or the X cameras), and the public for those products do not care about these "details", but care about design (another source of perceived differentiation) and brand recognition. Separate worlds, separate approaches.

 

No problem with that but I feel something does not fit properly in this global strategy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tomasis7]

It is bit strange. Leica has changed their "purist" approach to photography, which was the raison d'être of Leica. Expensive products, but different.

 

An example is high optical correction in lenses, but another one is elimination of low pass filter on sensors or even use of CCD instead of CMOS.

 

The point was that other manufacturers apply software, low pass filters and CMOS with strong image processing, but we are different, we pursue the purest possible approach... etc.

 

The S system was presented as a system designed for the best performance of optics, in contrast with Hasselblad/Fuji, which apply "corrections". The "Leica" lenses for Panasonic cameras were more expensive because Leica asks for higher optical standards. And so on.

 

This provided an implicit -but partial- justification for the difference in prices and it reinforced the brand and the myth behind it.

 

I understand the Leica T is a different product (just like the compacts or the X cameras), and the public for those products do not care about these "details", but care about design (another source of perceived differentiation) and brand recognition. Separate worlds, separate approaches.

 

No problem with that but I feel something does not fit properly in this global strategy.

 

I dont get from your post.

 

Global strategy what is it? Link to the official strategy of Leica?

 

care about design (another source of perceived differentiation)? is it for looks or different design for using it as tool?

 

 

I wouldnt be surprised if Leica stopped making the best optical lenses and make them smaller and affordable instead. For me , 50mm APO is just insane in price, not talking about Noctilux. With ongoing trend in the world, the luxury is no longer relevant, even Ferrari and Porsche go for downsizing.

[earleygallery]

I agree with Rosuna.

 

Leica have been found to release a lens which performs (from initial results anyway) very averagely and has to rely on digital correction to turn in an acceptable result.

 

The faithful are immediately converts to this new way of thinking - what does it matter if the hardware ain't up to much, software fixes are great!

 

I thought that Leica's raison d'etre was optical excellence. I was obviously mistaken all these years.