pico Posted May 5, 2014 Share #141 Posted May 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Of course, this design might be more expensive to make than some similar type of lenses... even if it also relies on software correction. Many, if not all, CSC zoom lenses with wide focal distances use software correction for distortion, You better believe not all 'zooms' correct using software correction. Look to motion picture technology in which optically correct zooms are priced beginning at about $17,000 for a cheap compromise, to over $40,000 a copy. Sent from my Etcha-sketch. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 Hi pico, 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!
AlanG Posted May 5, 2014 Share #142 Posted May 5, 2014 Me too noticed this.... using the DPReview images, and supposed they are full-file, one could even evaluate, I think, the "effective" focal length of the corrected ones (you need the exact distance of taking, which I suppose is the 1m-2m range) ... it's something like when you use de-distorction tools in PS, loosing "slices" of your picture... You could just count how many pixels are cut out and calculate by proportion. An 18mm lens on an APS sensor has a 66 degree field of view. You'd have to lose about 10% from the field of view to get to the equivalent of a 20mm lens on that sensor. AbelCine - Field of View Calculator 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrware Posted May 5, 2014 Share #143 Posted May 5, 2014 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? Not at all, but the amount of software correction makes it seem like they didn't do much optically. This doesn't make it a bad camera. It's just that expectations were set one way and a few days later the truth comes out. I'm not surprised, it's the new way. Fuji, Olympus et al are doing it. When folks complain, someone points out that Hasselblad does it too and well, since that's medium format, you should quit complaining seems to be the inference. I'm only disappointed from a pride in craftsmanship standpoint. I come from a family that manufacture custom products, so designing something as good as possible is very important to me. I look at software correction as a short cut, cheating if you will. The end result can be the same, but I have a hard time getting past that due to my background. In the end, it was probably a combination of price point and physical size that left the T series zoom where it's at. It would be nice if the fixed length T lenses are optically corrected to a much greater degree than the zoom. Disappointed, but not shocked. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 5, 2014 Share #144 Posted May 5, 2014 Size and cost are always tradeoffs and distortion correction is often a solution even if it degrades the image slightly and requires some cropping. Maybe this allowed for some other aspect of the lens to be better? Then, I cannot understand the price. It is three times more expensive than Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4 lens. Leica cannot justify the price. It is manufactured in Japan, it needs strong corrections, the specifications are typical (even modest)... It is not manufactured in Germany, they are not manufactured with special procedures, the performance is limited by the 16MP sensor and needs corrections, the optical correction is not Leica-standard, it is not a fast lens... or even extremely small... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted May 5, 2014 Share #145 Posted May 5, 2014 maybe just maybe the distortion correction is special................... THE "leica look" 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 5, 2014 Share #146 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Disappointed, but not shocked. I can understand this but part of my learning experience with the 16-50 lens on the Nex is how often I prefer the distorted version when shooting wide. (I do correct for c/a and generally for vignetting.) And the correction capability is there should I need it for subjects such as buildings. Yes I do lose some of the wide angle aspect when I correct for distortion... maybe equal to an 18 and not 16mm. I only want to carry a small and light lens system with this body so for wider I use a Rokinon 8mm fisheye... crop and/or correct as needed. It will be interesting to see what third party lenses get supported/adapted. Edited May 5, 2014 by AlanG Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 5, 2014 Share #147 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Then, I cannot understand the price. It is three times more expensive than Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4 lens. Leica cannot justify the price. It is manufactured in Japan, it needs strong corrections, the specifications are typical (even modest)... It is not manufactured in Germany, they are not manufactured with special procedures, the performance is limited by the 16MP sensor and needs corrections, the optical correction is not Leica-standard, it is not a fast lens... or even extremely small... Yes, yes, yes I think that is what I have been saying for a while but perhaps not so concisely. That is why the Nex 6 and 16-50 IS for $524 looks like a great bargain, and a better smaller overall package. But you have to give up the simple touch interface of the T, the polished aluminum and the special neck strap and body covers. I doubt if many "targeted" users would ever see a significant difference in image quality on the photos they typically make... assuming they have a clue how to get much out of either camera. As for the pixel peepers... why are you using a 16MP APS camera? Isn't it for convenience and you've already made the decision to sacrifice some quality? Edited May 5, 2014 by AlanG 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 5, 2014 Share #148 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Leica cannot justify the price. It is manufactured in Japan [...] EDIT: a contractor who meets Leica's standards is as good as if it were made In Germany where the design and high standards are anchored. This is a fundamental principle of our global co-operation in economical terms. I cannot help but to suspect that xenophobia is evinced here. Sent from my Etcha-sketch. Edited May 5, 2014 by pico 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 5, 2014 Share #149 Posted May 5, 2014 I would say that these issues must be primarily addressed to the software companies like Adobe so that they offer a way to ignore the corrections in the raw conversion workflow. I understand that Adobe regards application of the opcodes as mandatory. They were added after some quarreling between Adobe and Panasonic – the Panasonic LX3 (aka D-Lux 4) suffered from severe distortion at its shortest focal length that was corrected in-camera, and if I remember correctly, Panasonic insisted that the corrections must also be applied by the raw converter – thus the eventual inclusion of opcodes for just this purpose in the DNG spec. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted May 5, 2014 Share #150 Posted May 5, 2014 I demand that Leica price their stuff cheap enough for me to afford. I have no doubt they will comply immediately Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 5, 2014 Share #151 Posted May 5, 2014 Those who despise digital image correction might consider turning their off auto spell check Sent from my Etcha-sketch. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 5, 2014 Share #152 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) I cannot help but to suspect that xenophobia is evinced here. It is not xenophobia. There is no reason for subcontracting the manufacture if there is no cost advantages doing it in Japan, outside the Euro area. That is all. Hand made products made in Germany or Portugal are very expensive in dollars. Edited May 5, 2014 by rosuna Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 5, 2014 Share #153 Posted May 5, 2014 ... it's the new way. Fuji, Olympus et al are doing it. So, why the price is not in line with that of those manufacturers? Leica lenses' prices are typically justified by the location of the manufacturing (Germany and Portugal, Euro area), the labor intensive manufacturing procedures, the materials, the diseconomies of scale, the very high optical corrections, etc. None of these factors are in play here. The body of the camera, assembled in Europe and polished by hand is comparatively reasonable in price. The zoom lens, made in Japan in a plant for serialized production of optics (I assume), with regular specifications and substandard (for Leica) optical corrections is super expensive compared to the best lenses in that category of products. I agree with your craftsmanship standpoint, but I am disappointed and shocked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted May 5, 2014 Share #154 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) We still have M- lenses and use them on T body. Optical corrected! There are compromises as always. . Edited May 5, 2014 by tomasis7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 5, 2014 Share #155 Posted May 5, 2014 It is not xenophobia. There is no reason for subcontracting the manufacture if there is no cost advantages doing it in Japan, outside the Euro area. That is all. Hand made products made in Germany or Portugal are very expensive in dollars. As far as I am aware manufacturing costs are not the motivation.Hand made products are quite expensive in Japan as well. Production capacity is the reason. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 5, 2014 Share #156 Posted May 5, 2014 Many posts here display an ignorance of lens design. Correcting a lens is always a compromise and correcting one fault will produce another. . It makes perfect sense to “collect” all aberrations in one that is easily rectified in digital manipulation. And that is distortion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 5, 2014 Share #157 Posted May 5, 2014 assuming they have a clue how to get much out of either camera. One of the most arrogant remarks I have seen in this thread…. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 5, 2014 Share #158 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Some lenses for the M4/3rds are marked "Leica" and I presume are quite good. (I have never tried any.) So while we are all speculating about location of production, value of the name, how tight the tolerances might be, cost to produce, software correction, et al... How is it that the 25mm f1.4 Summilux only sells for $500, the 42.5 F1.2 Nokton sells for $1600, and the 45 f2.8 Macro Elmarit sells for $600? Are these inferior lenses compared with the ones on the T? Do APS-C lenses cost so much more to make than M4/3rds lenses? Edited May 5, 2014 by AlanG 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 5, 2014 Share #159 Posted May 5, 2014 Hand made products made in Germany are very expensive in dollars. So what? The new Leica lenses for the T are not hand-made. Is the quality in terms of price relevant? And exactly where is Leica's quality determined? Leica had so very many many mess-ups that Asian manufactures would not likely survive. It is not xenophobia. There is no reason to subcontract the manufacture if there is no cost advantages doing it in Japan, outside the Euro area. That is all. Hand made products made in Germany are very expensive in dollars. So what? I, and I think many more, could care less of the country of origin of the craftsmanship. Labor is labor, entirely separate from nationalism. Sent from my Etcha-sketch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 5, 2014 Share #160 Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) One of the most arrogant remarks I have seen in this thread…. Oh, I can be a lot more arrogant... Do you just sit around and look for tiny things to pick at? Haven't we already agreed what the "targeted" market is? My observation is that serious photographers represent a pretty small segment of camera buyers. I have a friend who was telling me she was thinking of upgrading her APS Nikon DSLR to a full frame model. I asked her why she wanted to do that and she really couldn't give me an answer but just thought she'd be able to get "better" photos with it. She knows very little about how to use a camera and is just now asking me where to take a class. I meet people like that all of the time since I go on lots of group hikes where people bring cameras and then start talking to me when they find out I'm a photographer. I suspect a lot of people who have some money and know little about photography will buy the T thinking that because it is so expensive and is a German Leica with a hand polished case representing true craftsmanship, that it also will just have to give them better pictures than a less expensive Japanese camera. I wonder how many of these people will consider using a tripod. Hypothesize if the shoe were on the other foot... all the other APS cameras have touchscreens and a simple interface. Then Leica introduces a new model with direct controls and more features than on the others. "Finally a mirrorless APS camera for serious photography." Edited May 5, 2014 by AlanG 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.