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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - it is not cheap, but for a zoom on a level like the APO zooms of the R system I would expect to pay well in excess of 5000 Euro, with a size and weight to match.

[plasticman]

Maybe this optically perfect zoom will come. Anybody care to fit an 900 gram 7000$ lens to the T as a kit zoom?

 

Jaap - both you and pico (who quotes the single time I used the word 'perfect' to prove...? errr well I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove, apart from the fact that I stupidly used the word perfect once and therefore totally and utterly destroyed any validity in my post apparently).

 

Anyway to get away from the stupid insulting going-on and get back to the debate, both of you are ignoring the point I was trying to make that Leica didn't need to make this kit zoom, at all, but chose to make it the way it is because of financial rather than photographic incentives.

 

The discussion about whether the software-corrected final image is better or worse is irrelevant to my point, as is your childish willful misconstruction of the point I was trying to make about Leica's options in choosing what sort of zoom lenses to produce for this camera.

 

As far as I can see, they have the prestige and market position to ignore the 18-56 zoom market if they had chosen to do so. But instead they decided to go with what everyone else is doing: the 'perfectly normal situation' that you refer to.

 

The interesting thing about Leica's aspiration to be Apple, is that Apple became powerful again precisely because they did not do what everyone else was doing.

 

btw as a sidenote, I think the constant attempts to blacken the reporters at dpreview are pretty transparent. I don't read their stuff much because I'm no longer the gearhead I once was, but they are not stupid and as far as I'm concerned they are not liars either.

[AlanG]

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.

 

That's the heart of it. If these lenses were inexpensive people would say of course they had to make these compromises to meet the size and price constraints. Btw, does the software not also correct c/a and vignetting? Is it possible it does localized sharpening?

 

As I've shown, barrel distortion can be useful to me, so I am happy with a cheap zoom anyway and can't see paying 12 times as much to at most get minor improvements that I'm unlikely to notice. How critical is the intended market anyway?

 

Plus my cheap zoom has IS so in some situations will produce sharper results than a "better" lens will. And I like the power zoom feature. This lens collapses and is much smaller than the Leica, is wider at 16mm, and only costs $150 in a kit. This lens plus a Nex3N body was being sold for $300 for a while.

[CaptZoom]

Result: pandemonium over a perfectly normal situation....

 

 

^ Doubleplusgood

 

I was under the impression that the lens offerings for the T system required no corrections; I got this impression after reading the initial "hands on" reports where quite a few of the reviewers reported that Leica told them the lenses were fully optically corrected. It's one of the reasons I didn't think the T system lenses were overpriced (and honestly the claim was difficult to believe given the size of the lenses and the pricing). Apparently marketing works and Alecia's team is getting better at it. Now we know the zoom uses some digital correction, and by early reports, it's still a fantastic lens. Hopefully this'll be affirmed by other reports.

 

It may also turn out to be the case that the 23mm T lens performs superbly (I suspect this'll be the case) on the T.

 

It's bizarre to me how upset some of the forum members are over the T using software correction on some of the lenses, when we're regularly exchanging notes on what is the best firmware/software profile to use on some non-coded Leica and all third party lenses on the M series. So it's perfectly ok to enable software corrections on a $7000 body and $4000 (average cost) lenses but completely unacceptable on a $2000 camera and $2000 lens?

[jaapv]

Not to forget the way the RX-1 was hailed on this forum (why can't Leica, for this price etc) with one of the most digitally corrected lenses in the business...

[jaapv]

That's the heart of it. If these lenses were inexpensive people would say of course they had to make these compromises to meet the size and price constraints. Btw, does the software not also correct c/a and vignetting? Is it possible it does localized sharpening?

 

Yes ACR (which is the software that does the footwork in this case) can do that.

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It gets a bit confusing.

 

Is it supposed that Leica wouldn't release a zoom in common focal length?

 

Is it supposed that Leica prices lenses at same level as competitors because software correction, also without knowing total costs?

 

Is it supposed that Leica becomes general branded company if they do things above?

[jaapv]

 

The discussion about whether the software-corrected final image is better or worse is irrelevant to my point

 

Actually, it is the only relevant point.

[Lee Martin]

Leica has always been on the forefront in technical developments to improve image quality coming from their lenses: Coating, asphericals, laser centering, COMO optimalization, etc. Why should they lag behind in this new technology?. The impression seems to be that this is some sort of cover-up technology. It is not ;it is an integrated design approach to make a good lens better. I would expect the Leica lens to outperform the other cheaper lenses in Rosuna's list because the basic design is better. But as virtually nobody has one, we don't really know, do we?

I take your point but why put an old sensor behind it , which is the same one in a much cheaper Sony NEX . If quality is crucial, which surely it is to Leica it seems a crucial thing and component to hold back on

[plasticman]

Actually, it is the only relevant point.

 

Well in that case I'd have to say you're mistaken about exactly how a company builds and maintains their brand identity. And how easily they can destroy it.

[jaapv]

I take your point but why put an old sensor behind it , which is the same one in a much cheaper Sony NEX . If quality is crucial, which surely it is to Leica it seems a crucial thing and component to hold back on

 

Still, it seems to do quite well on the comparison

[plasticman]

You mean that window-dressing will improve a product?

 

I see there's no point in a real discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

[diogenis]

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.

 

But, Rosuna, They do this for their T line not their M or S flagships.

If the result is superb images, we can allow a diversion in a matter that wont affect lik99% of its potential buyers. the T is not supposed to be a professional line

[AlanG]

Perception vs. reality.

 

Leica is positioned as a premium brand and that is dependent on all of the work that led up to building and communicating this image to the buyers. The reality is many of their products justified this image but that is as a fine photographic tool, not trading on the frivolous status concept of being a luxury item... which is all some other high end brands do in the fashion and status seeker world. ($5,000 purse anyone?)

 

My opinion is that these lenses do not provide any justification for such a high price compared with other similar lenses so my perception is that Leica is over-charging in order to try to communicate that this body and these lenses are luxury goods when in reality are they very special beyond costing a lot?

 

I don't know how many will share my perception. But independent testing will confirm whatever is the reality.

[jaapv]

. But independent testing will confirm whatever is the reality.

 

Fully agree. And the perception of the real-life users. It makes all this a bit premature.

[mjh]

I realize the physical problems in producing a 18-56 (28-85 equivalent) zoom lens, but then I wonder why Leica weren't brave enough to be different and decide to produce (say) a 24-36 optically perfect zoom instead?

Well, they do have some sense … The intended audience of the T system would regard a 24–36 mm as a joke (a 1.5x zoom range? Seriously?), and the quality-conscious would wonder why one did not chose a prime instead. It makes no sense to offer an optically perfect zoom that nobody really wants.

[Guest DrPix]

Many responders seem to forget that the real purpose of this thread's discussion is NOT to defend/attack digital len's correction! It's pretty obvious that if a lens performs well then everybody doesn't give a damn how the manufacturer did it! The "problem" here was Leica's claim that only optical correction was used in T lenses, which apparently is not the whole truth, to put it mildly! If this claim was not true then one wonders what else is not....Maybe it was another marketing hick-up, maybe some "lingual" misunderstanding...let's hope so.

[mjh]

The "problem" here was Leica's claim that only optical correction was used in T lenses, which apparently is not the whole truth, to put it mildly!

Actually it is not clear whether they did make this claim.

[Rick]

The "problem" here was Leica's claim that only optical correction was used in T lenses, which apparently is not the whole truth, to put it mildly! If this claim was not true then one wonders what else is not....Maybe it was another marketing hick-up, maybe some "lingual" misunderstanding...let's hope so.

 

Could you please reference where Leica claimed that only optical correction was used? Otherwise, all of your accusations are meaningless and a waste of forum ink.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[HeinzX]

Was it really Leica´s claim that only optical correction is used for T lenses ? If yes - I have not found a proof of that - this is an incorrectness, which does not enhance Leica´s reliability. And they are well advised to make a clear statement, if they have really claimed this. But anyway - I would be much more interested if i.e. the wide angle M lenses work wll together with the T camera, esp. the 18 mm SEM and the 28 mm 2.8 ASPH Elmarit. By the way, I will not buy the T because of different reasons, but I would be interested very much in a improved Leica X Vario with a T mount and features like stabilizer in the camera and dust removal as well as peaking feature and usability of all M lenses. Such a camera could make me buying it, even at a considerable higher price for the body - but not for the lenses. No matter if the lenses are corrected softwarewise or not.