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

[Steve P]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

It must be increasingly difficult in the digital age for Leica to maintain it's traditional differentiators across ALL it's lines when, due to the ability to correct in firmware, it's not so easy to show - IN AN IMAGE- the superiority of optically well corrected lenses, and yet it is still just as costly to manufacture them. Perhaps we're beginning to see a realignment of strategy, with the M system alone being presented as the paragon of traditional Leica virtues, alongside cameras such as the T which, while remaining firmly within the Leica ethos, nevertheless need to incorporate a more software based approach in order to compete.

[Advertisement]

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

[stevelap]

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?

 

I don't get it too Peter. James you've surprised me, I wonder just what is it about the T that has got you so exercised? I sense that you've become increasingly disenchanted with the 'luxury brand' aspect of Leica's identity lately, and I can understand that, but I didn't expect quite so much negativity from you.

[tomasis7]

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.

 

Imagine if Leica releases T body for M users. With excellent optics as 50 APO version in T-mount or whatever. Then one pays 10 000$ for T body and world-class optics and brag that one got the "M" feeling in smaller size.

 

In economic sense, T body is priced quite low and it is right way to go. I like to laugh at purists of whatever brand. Porsche purists were close to get heart break when Porsche released a Suv

[jaapv]

Hmmm...Tell that to any of the major lens/camera makers. I'm afraid we are witnessing a new approach. Of course, if you don't approve of Dem New-fangled Thangs, you are quite right....

[rosuna]

Hmmm... I'm afraid we are witnessing a new approach.

 

It is my impression too.

[rosuna]

Prices comparisons (taxes included):

 

Fuji 16-50mm f /3.5-5.6 XC OIS…………...…....…….244,88 €

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS ………......….704,43 €

Sony 16-50mm f/3,5-5,6 OSS……………..……….......321,44 €

Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS ……………………….…...541,34 €

Leica 18-56mm f3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T Asph...............1.449,98 €

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

The whole brand position is dependent on this perception of 'photographic purity' and an aloof disdain for the 'shortcuts' employed by other manufacturers in attaining the final result.

Obviously there isn't a 'link' to the 'official strategy', as you put it - but believe me there will be a mountain of internal documentation and analysis of how the brand should be presented in every context, and how the consumer should visualize the use and performance of a Leica product.

 

That's why I don't personally understand this design choice. 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?

 

I'm sure some expert will weigh in and say that wouldn't be possible either... but my essential point is that they could have made other decisions than the ones they actually made. And in doing so, they would have differentiated themselves from the mass-market in several ways: they could stand aloof from the poorly-executed 'kit-zoom' that other companies produce, and they could have highlighted their historical reliance on optical excellence, rather than digital interpolation, to achieve the final image.

 

That's how the brand is built and maintained. The mass consumer market isn't necessarily aware of all the debates that we indulge in here, but the perception of quality trickles down - especially nowadays. If too many people get the notion that these lenses are really nothing exceptional, then the person buying into the 'Leica myth' becomes an object of collegial mockery rather than the bearer of a prestige commodity.

[jaapv]

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?

[lct]

No problem as long as IQ remains outstanding but is it still the case compared to competitors like Zeiss for instance? This is IMO the key question.

[pico]

That's why I don't personally understand this design choice. 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?

 

I'm sure some expert will weigh in and say that wouldn't be possible either...

 

Let's inject some engineering and manufacturing reality here.

 

Look at the lenses designed for cine work, digital in particular. Nobody makes a perfect zoom lens, and economical prime lenses run from about $5,000 to $3,000 each, and the best primes such as Leica's Summicron-C Primes ... well, I did not look for the recent prices, but if they follow the trend, they are over $15,000 each.

[jaapv]

No problem as long as IQ remains outstanding but is it still the case compared to competitors like Zeiss for instance? This is IMO the key question.

 

A bit hard for Zeiss as they don't make the cameras. I'm sure that if they produce an integrated lens for for instance a Sony camera, that digital correction wil be implemented.

[mjh]

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

They are still expensive but different. But they also change. They have to. There is a danger that ‘purity’ degenerates into a mere attitude rather than being a real asset, and that spells doom, sooner or later.

 

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.

Did Leica forego high optical correction? I didn’t think so. Their stance towards low-pass filters has not changed, and indeed other vendors have now been following their example. CCD vs. CMOS is not a matter of quality or purity; there is just no denying that nearly all progress in sensor technology happens in the CMOS camp, so anyone clinging to CCD finds himself at an increasing disadvantage.

 

Digital corrections on top of optical corrections are now state of the art, and for good reasons. Modern digital cameras are less forgiving with regard to sharpness and resolution than film once was, so aberrations such as spherical aberration or curvature of field must be corrected to a high standard – optically, as there is no way to do it digitally. On the other hand, distortion, vignetting, and to some extent also lateral chromatic aberration are perfectly amenable to digital corrections, which opens new degrees of freedom for the lens designer. For example you can design a smaller and lighter zoom lens if you accept a higher amount of distortion, knowing that this distortion can be corrected digitally without any apparent loss in image quality. People interested in mirrorless systems generally don’t cherish big and heavy, even when the lens speed they wish for requires it, so vendors are usually going for small and light – Fuji is taking flak about some of their recent lenses that are perceived as being too big and heavy for a mirrorless system.

[tomasis7]

The whole brand position is dependent on this perception of 'photographic purity' and an aloof disdain for the 'shortcuts' employed by other manufacturers in attaining the final result.

Obviously there isn't a 'link' to the 'official strategy', as you put it - but believe me there will be a mountain of internal documentation and analysis of how the brand should be presented in every context, and how the consumer should visualize the use and performance of a Leica product.

 

That's why I don't personally understand this design choice. 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?

 

I'm sure some expert will weigh in and say that wouldn't be possible either... but my essential point is that they could have made other decisions than the ones they actually made. And in doing so, they would have differentiated themselves from the mass-market in several ways: they could stand aloof from the poorly-executed 'kit-zoom' that other companies produce, and they could have highlighted their historical reliance on optical excellence, rather than digital interpolation, to achieve the final image.

 

That's how the brand is built and maintained. The mass consumer market isn't necessarily aware of all the debates that we indulge in here, but the perception of quality trickles down - especially nowadays. If too many people get the notion that these lenses are really nothing exceptional, then the person buying into the 'Leica myth' becomes an object of collegial mockery rather than the bearer of a prestige commodity.

 

I see your point.

 

We have to ask us ourselves what is photographic purity and how much are we willing to accept? I see T camera as reduced "to essence" meanwhile some see it as silly Apple Iphone, luxury, wannabe dumbed-down camera. What was Barnack camera back in year 1920 then when Apple and other hyped things didn't exist? Design goes long way back and it has nothing to do with new confusing definitions we see nowadays as "myth", "prestige".

 

Re zoom choices, I think they release more different zooms, primes. T camera got released very recently. Personally I don't care about Zoom or AF (for M mount it was only 2 zooms and they came after a bunch of primes and several decades). I understand that Leica has to do reasonable decisions in order to sell more stuffs and fit larger group of targeted market instead making very odd decisions as produce digital back for R bodies and still make financial loss. T camera is eccentric enough and it is not a mass-production neither.

 

I think Leica should focus more on telling photographic experience instead of hyping up specs of features. I think they are doing well in collaboration with Magnum agency, setting up photo challenges.

 

I want that new buyers perceive Leica as photo company oriented on photographing experience and at the same time not associate with words as prestige, myth, collection, investment. It is easy to forget the essence of photography when the world is filled of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter

[plasticman]

Let's inject some engineering and manufacturing reality here.

 

Look at the lenses designed for cine work, digital in particular. Nobody makes a perfect zoom lens, and economical prime lenses run from about $5,000 to $300 each, and the best primes such as Leica's Summicron-C Primes ... well, I did not look for the recent prices, but if they follow the trend, they are over $15,000 each.

 

The level of mechanical and optical perfection necessary in those lenses isn't really applicable in the case of this APS-C consumer camera imho. But aspiring to be different and better than the competition even in this market wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea for Leica - again imho.

 

In my opinion, Leica chose another path with this camera. It's nothing to do with "Dem New-fangled Thangs", it's more to do with the ROI. IMHO

 

PS: I still quite like the T body - though I would prefer it machine-polished

[pico]

The level of mechanical and optical perfection necessary in those lenses isn't really applicable in the case of this APS-C consumer camera imho.

 

You were harping on 'perfection' which would put a lens out of reach for the targeted market. I am merely trying to avoid hyper-expectation language in the complaints I read in this thread.

[plasticman]

You were harping on 'perfection' which would put a lens out of reach for the targeted market. I am merely trying to avoid hyper-expectation language in the complaints I read in this thread.

 

I think I need to use the word 'perfect' more than just once for it to qualify as 'harping on'. If you prefer, you can imagine that I wrote "more corrected" in place of the single "perfect" in the original post.

 

Otherwise I don't think my post can accurately be characterized as 'hyper-expectation' nor 'complaint' - but these hyperbolic attacks have characterized your contribution to this thread in my opinion, so I'm not surprised.

 

In any case, I was simply trying to open-up the debate to include the possibility that Leica had other choices at their disposal which I (and some others) would have preferred. That's all. I'm not in the business of designing lenses.

[jaapv]

Let's summarize:

1. Leica has decided to follow current best practice to correct aberrations that need optical correction conventionally - and better than was possible before. To counteract the residual errors left by this approach they correct the aberrations that lend themselves to digital elimination in postprocessing. As do many other lens makers.

 

One can agree or disagree with this method but it is hard to see how it could be done otherwise. In this segment lenses cannot be larger, nor silly-expensive.

 

2. Leica decided not to restrict the lens correction to firmware, but to leave it to the raw workflow. Imo a wise decision, not only because the more powerful PC and its software are simply better, but it will obviate the need to rewrite the firmware as more advanced algorithms become available.

 

This last point was clearly misinterpreted by DPReview as "no digital corrections at all" whereas it was "no in-camera corrections" ......

 

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

[pico]

I think I need to use the word 'perfect' more than just once for it to qualify as 'harping on'.

 

I wonder why Leica weren't brave enough to be different and decide to produce (say) a 24-36 optically perfect zoom instead?

 

Enough, already.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

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

[rosuna]

Let's summarize:

1. Leica has decided to follow current best practice to correct aberrations that need optical correction conventionally - and better than was possible before. To counteract the residual errors left by this approach they correct the aberrations that lend themselves to digital elimination in postprocessing. As do many other lens makers.

 

One can agree or disagree with this method but it is hard to see how it could be done otherwise. In this segment lenses cannot be larger, nor silly-expensive.

 

2. Leica decided not to restrict the lens correction to firmware, but to leave it to the raw workflow. Imo a wise decision, not only because the more powerful PC and its software are simply better, but it will obviate the need to rewrite the firmware as more advanced algorithms become available.

 

This last point was clearly misinterpreted by DPReview as "no digital corrections at all" whereas it was "no in-camera corrections" ......

 

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

 

 

All is now correct and clear.

 

The only controversial point, after all those clarifications, is the term "silly-expensive", because the current zoom is really expensive after all. Lets see how it compares with similar zooms (CSCs, APS-C cameras) when detailed reviews appear on-line.