edwardkaraa Posted May 3, 2014 Share #21 Â Posted May 3, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) My personal view is that it doesn't matter as long as there is an option to turn these corrections off by the user, and that the lenses don't suddenly perform very badly with the corrections off. But who cares anyway as the T is designed for non technical people on one hand, and on the other hand, even Hasselblad does that. Â As far as I'm concerned, it's a non issue, as long as the above mentioned points are true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 Hi edwardkaraa, Take a look here Leica T performs digital lens correction , a claim by dpreview.com. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pieterpronk Posted May 3, 2014 Share #22  Posted May 3, 2014 It doesn’t really matter. There are the usual suspects but what would change if you knew who it was? It doesn't matter to me either, but I doubt it is a good marketing strategy. I doubt it will stay a secret, and when it does come out it would just be ammunition on the forums for people who dislike Leica. Being open with information from the start seems the best strategy.  For example it seems that now with this newfound in-camera lens correction, it's not the fact that it does that (every brand does that in some way or other) that causes the stir, but it is the fact that Leica denied it or has forgotten to mention it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted May 3, 2014 Share #23 Â Posted May 3, 2014 No, for all we know it does not. It's the "for all we know" part that is might be a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted May 3, 2014 Share #24  Posted May 3, 2014 For those interested, I posted a analysis of the Leica T's DNG format shortly after it was announced. It does indeed, as Michael states, use DNG opcodes for lens correction. The opcodes in question correct for lens distortion, not vignetting:  ChromaSoft: Leica T (Typ 701) raw file (DNG) analysis  Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 3, 2014 Share #25 Â Posted May 3, 2014 mean even the keeping secret of the Japanese manufacturer of the Leica T lenses seems to be a ticking marketing timebomb. At some point somebody will know and on forums people will be lamenting the fact that Leica never told that they used a certain manufacturer from Japan... Â I'm confused by this - I reckon that the knowledge would be a good marketing tool, certainly, I don't think it's a ticking timebomb at all. rather the contrary.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DrPix Posted May 3, 2014 Share #26 Â Posted May 3, 2014 Childish white lies that were bound to be revealed sooner or later. Leica DID, on several occasions (interviews) claim "only optical correction" of T-lenses. Personally I don't give a damn WHAT correction they apply as long as the lenses perform well! See X Vario! But I DO mind when somebody tries to sell me a pack of lies.... What world they (Leica) are living in? Virtual? Shame.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 3, 2014 Share #27  Posted May 3, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) This isn’t about the software. DNG 1.3 (introduced in 2009) provides opcodes for specifying corrections of various aberrations and the application of these opcodes is mandatory. When the camera vendor includes these opcodes in the raw files, you don’t need an updated version of Lightroom or ACR to find and decode the opcodes. By the way, the X Vario performs some digital corrections as well, even when its lens performs reasonably well even without. Digital corrections in the T are not really surprising.  It's amazing isn't it . . . and Apple STILL don't support DNG 1.3, which means that iTunes and Aperture cannot read the DNG files from either the XVario or the Leica T, and they do not produce thumbnails in the finder. This isn't Leica's fault, but it irritates me beyond belief.  :mad: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieterpronk Posted May 3, 2014 Share #28 Â Posted May 3, 2014 I'm confused by this - I reckon that the knowledge would be a good marketing tool, certainly, I don't think it's a ticking timebomb at all. rather the contrary.. Â Oh I imagine the worst case scenario of a site like dpreview or some popular blog breaking the news when they first find out who manufacturers the T lenses. Doesn't matter much who it is, or if Leica already admitting to not making the lenses themselves, the main story would be "Leica does not make expensive lense themselves in Germany, but are made by Japanese factory." Even with many Leica users already knowing this, from a marketing standpoint you just don't want this in the news a second time. Forums will complain that Leica should have told them before. What else hasn't Leica been open about? Blah blah. I just don't think it's smart from a marketing standpoint, especially when they really don't need to hide it anyway. Â Let me add that I'm not even convinced in this case for example that Leica really officially said that they did not do software corrections, but dpreview or the readers don't seem to care much about whether it is true or not. The main story seems to be "Leica lies". Not good publicity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 3, 2014 Share #29 Â Posted May 3, 2014 But there is no way to prevent this kind of bashing. The perps will always find an irrelevant point to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted May 3, 2014 Share #30 Â Posted May 3, 2014 This isn't Leica's fault, but it irritates me beyond belief. Apple STILL don't support DNG 1.3, It all depends on agreements between the players adobe and apple have never really seen eye to eye ...... apple still doesn't support flash Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted May 3, 2014 Share #31 Â Posted May 3, 2014 It would appear that what got on their goat was the fact that THEY were told by leica (and i do remember reading it somewhere) that the lenses were corrected optically not via software and they do actually say that at the end of the day it really doesn't make any difference from an IQ POV. Also their preview is fairly positive about the camera so personally I wouldn't get into DPreview bashing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGodParticle/Hari Posted May 3, 2014 Share #32  Posted May 3, 2014 I'm confused by this - I reckon that the knowledge would be a good marketing tool, certainly, I don't think it's a ticking timebomb at all. rather the contrary..   It is a matter of time before the mysterious Japanese manufacturer is named  How do you think the forums will then react to Leica's pricing of the lenses that are "Made in Japan" and in mass production, not hand made / hand polished / hand whatever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaTea Posted May 3, 2014 Share #33 Â Posted May 3, 2014 Considering DPR was unable to do a test with the 23mm, here's an image taken with the 23mm with accompanying DNG file: https://mega.co.nz/#F!Fh4giBAC!FEXKN1zGyA5RhYz2TcxjoQ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted May 3, 2014 Share #34 Â Posted May 3, 2014 Steve Huff's take. Â The Leica T Software Correction Conspiracy | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 3, 2014 Share #35  Posted May 3, 2014 It doesn't matter to me either, but I doubt it is a good marketing strategy. I doubt it will stay a secret, and when it does come out it would just be ammunition on the forums for people who dislike Leica. Being open with information from the start seems the best strategy. If in the 17th century you turned to Rembrandt to commission a painting, you would know that he ran a workshop with pupils and assistants doing the minor stuff while Rembrandt himself would do the composition and paint the really importants parts. But when it came to signing the painting there would be only Rembrandt’s name, not those of his assistants. The brand was Rembrandt; you paid for a Rembrandt and you got a Rembrandt. Even when it was no secret that he had assistants, their names would be omitted to strengthen the brand. Rembrandt would not have wanted that, say, someone ordered a painting of something or other, stressing that he should see to it that so-and-so did the background stuff as he was well known to be the best at this in the Netherlands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted May 3, 2014 Share #36 Â Posted May 3, 2014 If in the 17th century you turned to Rembrandt to commission a painting very few could afford to do that .............ps paintings were not ordered they were commissioned.......it was not a brand it was his skill as an artist/an individual that was prized Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 3, 2014 Share #37 Â Posted May 3, 2014 Isn't this another of those problems that's only a problem if you want it to be a problem? Â (Even if it were a problem in the first place, which it appears not to be.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve P Posted May 3, 2014 Share #38 Â Posted May 3, 2014 You mean to tell me that camera manufacturers employ the latest software algorithms to give us better results. THEY ARE DEVILS! P.S. my Rembrandts are going on Ebay first thing in the morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 3, 2014 Share #39  Posted May 3, 2014 It is a matter of time before the mysterious Japanese manufacturer is named  How do you think the forums will then react to Leica's pricing of the lenses that are "Made in Japan" and in mass production, not hand made / hand polished / hand whatever  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.  As I say, I think naming the company and singing it's praises from the rooftop would be better than not (but what do I know). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGodParticle/Hari Posted May 3, 2014 Share #40  Posted May 3, 2014 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.   As I say, I think naming the company and singing it's praises from the rooftop would be better than not (but what do I know).    Jono, you're missing my point here  It's not me who needs convincing about Leica quality, I have a ton of M gear  The main reason why Leica lenses are expensive is because they're Hand Made in Germany  I believe you that the T lenses will be of comparable Leica quality  For lenses made in japan that are rolling off the mechanical production lines, the price does seem on the higher side?  Leica should listen to your advice a little more it seems Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.