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

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My demand for quality gear at cheap price was a tongue-in-cheek comment. I should have added

 

 

We know

[Steve P]

Leica sails close to the wind with some of its marketing claims

 

I'm just grateful they thought twice before starting a mini-M whisper campaign.

[Advertisement]

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

[M9reno]

Clearly they learn from some mistakes, only to move on to making others.

[pgk]

To quote DPReview: "..... Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. ..... we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor."

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but relying on optical corrections to project the best possible image onto the sensor does not actually exclude the use of software to then adjust this image, does it? This is all about context and exactly/precisely what was said. It seems to me that in order to use software correction you must have a high quality image in the first place and I don't see the two being incompatible at all. Indeed, as pico commented, 'I [too] would very disappointed if Leica did not apply digital correction via DNG options.' Storm in a teacup if you ask me, but never let good final image quality get in the way of the means of producing it;).

[pico]

Can anyone link to these statements in interviews??

 

Oh, someone will write in FOX News style factism, "According to our source, DPReview, Leica claimed...".

 

 

Oh, wait, someone has! " To quote DPReview: "..... Leica was very keen to stress the optical quality of the new lenses. ..... we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor."

 

(With apologies in good humor to pgk who truly nailed it.)

[euston]

DPReview is out there to get the clicks. Leica is out there to sell cameras. Leica sails close to the wind with some of its marketing claims, especially when it comes to associating its current digital products with Leitz/old-Leica's analogue glory-days: hence the statement on the T web page that T lenses are the product of a 150-year legacy of precision optics manufacture. The unwary reader immediately thinks of a T lens as the newest product of the same company that has been making microscopes since 1849, and some of the sharpest photo lenses since 1925. A T lens as the proud successor of Elmar and Summicron. Nice message.

 

Would this unwary reader realise that T lenses are not actually manufactured by Leica? Would he/she realise that their aberrations are of a different order than those of their M lens 'siblings', and unacceptable if not removed by software in-camera?

 

Dr Kaufmann's new, digital oriented Leica company sees a premium in its asociation with an analog legacy. Hence a move to Wetzlar, of all possible post-Solms destinations. Hence the ridiculous claim that a digital Leica is a "lifetime companion", not different from your grandfather's screwmount heirloom. They milk it for all it's worth. Sometimes, unsurprisingly, a little milk splashes on their face.

 

So they might never have denied software correction in print, or in interviews, but the message they keep sending is: tradition, tradition, tradition. And software correction, like many other digital realities, are treated whisperingly, as marketing inconveniences. DPReview are in business, too. Should they be blamed for taking advantage of Leica's rather artful construction of an analog marketing image?

 

 

I see it much the same way you do. Welcome to the world of brand marketing! It’s about managing perception. Truth doesn’t come into it. Leica’s heritage is an asset for the brand - there to be exploited.

 

As you point out, it’s a potentially dangerous game. If enough customers ever got the idea that they were being fooled, it could mean the end of the brand. I would like to see Leica being a bit more careful or, if you like, honest. A reputation for honesty in marketing would be a brand asset I could respect. Leica really doesn’t need to resort to half truths and misleading claims in order to sell its excellent products.

 

By the way, this site is also a business which relies on clicks for its income. The difference is that the contributors create the content. Apart from the Blog, there are no editorials.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is no doubt that Leica has to rely on brand perception, and now design and finish, to differentiate this camera from the competition... considering there is nothing special about the internal components to make us think it will perform significantly better or last longer.

 

And at this point, nobody knows how much better the lenses are than ones of similar focal length for other brands. Saying you rely on optical correction is like saying an optical engineer designed the lens. All lenses are designed with optical correction as well as they can within size, cost, and what is possible. Today software correction can be thrown into this mix as another option just as is the choice of the diffractive index on each piece of glass.

 

I will say that I use DXO to correct my lenses but find Canon's 17 and 24 TSE to need virtually no correction. Whereas the 24-105 would not meet my needs without correction. (Distortion, C/A, vignetting, localized sharpening.) The 45 TSE needs a lot of C/A correction. As long as they all work for me, I don't care how they get there.

 

I think the Leica T would make sense to me at the $1000-$1500 price range with an EVF and zoom. If the body and lens costs so much more to make to justify the higher pricing then I would have to debate the cost/benefit of paying so much more for a slightly better lens... considering simply going to the 20-24MP APS sensor could give better quality in another cheaper camera with a less expensive kit lens.

Edited May 4, 2014 by AlanG

[pico]

I know several people who would buy the T, and they are all wealthy. It is their type of camera - easy to use, sophisticated in appearance/design, and of a reputable prestige brand. Believe me, they know hype and marketing - none became millionaires by being otherwise. None of them would be M customers. It's just too darn hard to use and ultimately embarrassing to show outcomes.

 

I"m okay with Leica making another camera for them. I want Leica to be alive for the M line.

.

[rramesh]

In this forum, I have seen a lot of negativism about the T by M users, maybe even some bashing.

 

'It's not good enough', 'it's just a APS-C sensor', 'lenses are made in Japan', 'there's no integral viewfinder', 'Fuji or Ricoh are a better option' etc.

 

But believe me, as an M user we absolutely need to see the T succeed.

 

As a product targeting a new market segment, it's a definite winner. It's gorgeous, it's super easy to use, it's something Steve Jobs would have been proud of. In my opinion it's a game changer for Leica and even the industry.

 

Now I am confident Leica will be around for the long haul and will have the means to continue to develop the M line further.

[Rick]

Leica glass: The haters can bash Leica they want, but it is pretty difficult to make the case that Leica lenses are anything but the best. Leica lenses allow the M and S to produce image quality best in class.

 

So, when DPReview demonstrated the software correction used by Leica to improve chromatic aberration, vignetting, and barrel distortion in the Vario-Elmar-T 18-56 ASPH lens, the Leica basher pounced on this obvious (to most of us here that have M lenses) revelation. Somehow, the underlying basher- logic worked itself into an ignorant frenzy that software correction is inherently undesirable in modern lens design... when actually the opposite is true. There is a whole lot of optical correction taking place in Leica lenses besides vignetting, CA, and distortion.

 

The reported lens design: Apparently, the revelation that Leica uses software correction on virtually all of their lenses wasn't the worst of it according to the Leica bashers. They locked onto this statement from DPReview, "we heard that they relied on optical corrections, rather than software, so as to project the best possible image onto the sensor." Good. Great. That sounds like the right way to design a lens. Rely on optical correction rather than relying on software. Like saying, I rely on paying cash rather than credit. So, you catch me using my credit card to buy groceries and I'm now deceptive? Sheesh.

 

It is so clear what the agenda is here. Assassinate the optics (the camera seems to be a home run). Without the best in class optics, there really would be less reason to buy this groundbreaking Leica camera. And, that is precisely why these new lenses are very likely going to be amazing and expensive. Imagine well built, small, AF, Leica lenses that make up a very small, compact Leica system... utilizing a new system body that will only get better as the electronics mature.

 

Leica designed there own mount: The lenses for the M and S system are in part what make the camera systems so desirable and exclusive. The lenses, for the most part, are designed to be utilized on their respected system. Leica doesn't make lenses for other mounts.

 

And, when Leica designed the Leica T they decide not to make a MFT system with lenses that could have been used on other cameras made by Olympus and Panasonic or any one else. Leica designed there own mount. Once again, Leica has designed a system and that makes it difficult to use their optics on other brands. Certainly, the advantage of a larger mount and larger than MFT sensor was the reason, but in the end, once again, if you desire Leica optics and want to take advantage of all they offer... you are going to have to buy a Leica. And, that just cheezes off a whole bunch of folks.

[Camping]

Hi RickLeica

 

quote "Without the best in class optics, there really would be less reason to buy this groundbreaking Leica camera."

 

Shouldn't this read "Without the best in class "lenses", there really would be less reason to buy this groundbreaking Leica camera."

 

The lens quality includes the programing... so the quality of the naked optics will be determined.

 

For this reason the lens and optics are different items.

 

Paul

[pico]

If Leica were to make a lens intended to digital applications, especially for miniature formats that required no software correction, then NOBODY could afford them.

 

It would be a product killer. Besides, no clients could tell the difference in our visually impoverished CRT oriented culture.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

Edited May 4, 2014 by pico

[janki]

I've heard that pictures taken with a digital camera are transformed into amounts of ones and zeros. How can that be true, when we can actually see a real picture on the computer screen?

Joking aside.

Leica T is may be the first system camera that without compromise makes use of digital technology.

Why should we not take advantage of the software correction when it can make the camera system smaller and lighter?

As several here have mentioned, it is what we finally see on the screen that counts.

Anyway, here's a quick introduction for those who wish to create digital images with sharpness from corner to corner, – interesting, but not just easy. And it is not an understatement to claim that it is necessary to have some “software correction” with this method too.

[M9reno]

Sorry to bash and assassinate. I just had no idea my modern Lux 35 FLE was applying software correction to the image on my negatives inside my M6. How silly of me! No wonder my film looks so good!

 

Now maybe Leica will eventually release an adapter that will let me use these super new T lenses on my M6? I can't wait to see the results.

 

[quadraticadder]

Read Karbe's interview about the XV and the lens ...... with this size of sensor/format you run up against a brick wall of optical/physical problems that are impossible to solve without making the lens enormous ...... and you have plenty of them you can stick on the front of the T with an adapter if you want. I think you could throw twice as much money at the T and XV zooms ...... and just end up with a bigger lump of metal ...... and mimimal optical improvement in the ultimate image

 

To me, this is the root of the issue. Is it even possible to construct a lens that works with the APS-C sensor in this body geometry that will optically produce a low distortion, low CA (there are various forms), and low vignetting image on the sensor at wide to moderate 35 mm equivalent fields without digital lens correction? Would such a lens be so large and complex that all the price and size advantages of the T system are lost? Again, I wonder if such a lens is even possible? In other words, are the quality of Leica T lenses being slammed for a real issue, or for something that just optically is not possible or affordable (even for Leica)?

 

I believe some distortions do not remove data from the image and are easy to fix with digital correction. While other problems, such as various forms of CA cannot be corrected without degrading the image quality. So it is logical to optimize the optics for what can best be fixed optically, and use digital correction for what can be fixed digitally. Especially if it would be physically very difficult, if not impossible to fix optically all the artifacts and still maintain the advantages of the system (size, use, cost). Modern digital photography, especially in compact systems, produce images with the lens, sensor, body geometry, and software correction all optimized to work together in the most connected way to form the final image. Dare I say it? It's old-fashioned to expect a lens that is part of such a system to optically produce a distortion- and artifact free image at the sensor.

 

It only makes sense to evaluate how well the lens functions within the entire image processing stream. I did not see this analysis at DPR. I am certain that the Leica T lenses are extremely well optically optimized to produce the best image possible with the sensor, body geometry, software image processing combination of the T. To disable the software correction, then take pictures of brick walls or of branches against a bright sky from the edges of the image at 100 % zoom using an entry (or Leica) wide angle zoom is not a comprehensive analysis. It's an analysis that will shock and stir up people, rather than tell us how well the lens performs its function in the system.

 

Perhaps DPR spoke to someone who speaks German as their native language, and the above was lost in translation while speaking in English with the Leica rep.? Perhaps the Leica rep. was wrong. Considering the absence of any other evidence besides DPR's that Leica's position is that digital correction is not used in the T system, DPR should have contacted Leica for clarification. I'm happy to stand corrected if there is a source independent of DPR that states the same thing...then Leica has some explaining to do, and their marketing people should be dehired.

 

Until then,

 

Best,

Steve

[waloszek]

I know, it's not quite "on topic", but we ourselves have "bad" lenses in our eyes (according to a famous German optic professional whose name I have forgotten...) that need to be and are corrected in "software" by a huge "computer," our brain...

Best regards, Gerd

[Rick]

Sorry to bash and assassinate. I just had no idea my modern Lux 35 FLE was applying software correction to the image on my negatives inside my M6.

 

 

The 35 FLE was designed to rely on optical correction for your M6 (of course). When used on a digital M, Leica has added software correction to both help with inherent digital sensor issues and to better correct purely optical aberrations such as distortions that your film M6 can only dream of correcting without external software.

 

I'm not sure that you are bashing or assassinating, you know how great the Leica glass is. I don't think it is any surprise to any of us here that Leica strives to primarily correct as much as they can with optics and balance that with what can be done with software.

 

Nothing can beat great optics, but design considerations such as cost and size have to enter in to a reasonable design or Leica would be attaching an Otus-like franken-lens to the T. So, they use a little software magic. Great.

 

I guess I'm a little bit at a loss. On one hand, Leica gets bashed for never being able to utilize current technology... and, on the other hand, when they produce a technologically groundbreaking camera design that exploits state of the art optical and software lens design, they get bashed for using the latest software lens technology. Go figure.

Edited May 4, 2014 by RickLeica

[quadraticadder]

I know, it's not quite "on topic", but we ourselves have "bad" lenses in our eyes (according to a famous German optic professional whose name I have forgotten...) that need to be and are corrected in "software" by a huge "computer," our brain...

Best regards, Gerd

 

Leyeca? Leyetz? Neyekon?

 

Best,

Steve

 

(Actually, the last one was a mispronunciation)

[algrove]

I just realized that my unlocked 5S iPhone cost $1k less than the T and now I have an $800 cable release for the T. Thank you Leica as I can now better justify buying the 5S. Plus there is a Leica App for me. This T fits right into my lifestyle. Swipe, swipe, swipe.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tomasis7]

I just realized that my unlocked 5S iPhone cost $1k less than the T and now I have an $800 cable release for the T. Thank you Leica as I can now better justify buying the 5S. Plus there is a Leica App for me. This T fits right into my lifestyle. Swipe, swipe, swipe.

 

Welcome to new times!

 

T letter stands for transition.