Why is lens detection such a big deal?

[philcycles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is not a troll, I promise.

I don't get it. The camera doesn't care what lens you use. None of my lenses or adapters are encoded. Everything works fine. I understand that the camera can do some processing with wide angles but I don't see any problems with mine.

Perhaps I'm an outlier because I don't care what camera or lens I use-or even where the picture was taken but that's another story. I just care about the image.

I'm a 40 year Leica user and this is not a troll, I promise. I just don't get it.

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

If you don't get it and don't have a need for it then you can set it to OFF and leave it OFF as long as you own the camera.  Unless you're OCD I would imagine that would be as good as if lens detection did not even exist. 

 

Some wide angle lenses show color-biased vignetting peripherally and/or in the corners.  Those can be corrected in post, but the in-camera processing algorithms save that step.  Lens-detection per-se isn't required, as the coding can be accessed via a manual menu setting.  Detection is simply the quickest way.  

 

Also, many people seem to want the lenses identified in the EXIF data, and detection does that. 

 

Like you I'm a 40 year Leica shooter.  I fall somewhere in the middle.  Couldn't care less about EXIF ID, so none of my lenses over 35mm are coded.  All my lenses 35 and under benefit from the in-camera algorithms, so those I DIY coded.  A few minutes, a dreml, and a little bottle of model car paint is all it took.  I leave lens detection on permanently, when an uncoded lens is attached there is no effect.

[flyalf]

Different users - different requirements.

 

I find the lens detection a great feature:

- It allows the camera to corrects some flaws automatically

- It allows me to choose if I will allow Lightroom to do additinal optical corrections.

- It allows me to sort of what lense used for different photos (not important for me).

 

Frankly if you want to make a photography rather than just point and shoot I find it hard to understand what there is not to get? No offense meant. Either one recognises that others have different requirements or not. Im totallly happy with others not objecting to some optical / sensor errors, although I find it a bit strange that someone doesnt want the highest awailable "techical" IQ, especially since this is not interering with the artistic quialities.

[mirekti]

While on this topic, do you usually use the LR lens correction or leave it as it is, and why?
For me I use it 99% of the time as it techincally corrects the photo. However, the image sometimes looks more apealing when left distorted a bit. ??? :-)

[thighslapper]

....errrr .... I have to agree with flyalf ...... what is the point is spending thousands on a camera body and expensive lenses to achieve 'Leica Quality Images' and then forgo the additional image corrections available in-camera and automatically in LR with lens recognition ??

[bocaburger]

I've had all my Leica lenses since before digital, when I was shooting slide film.  I was fine with whatever vignetting or aberrations the lenses had then and I'm fine with those now.  I only use coding because with wider lenses there are new and objectionable effects with them on the Leica digital bodies.  I almost never shoot DNG therefore almost never use LR so I don't add those corrections, just whatever in-camera corrections the coding provokes to get rid of or reduce the corner color casts.

[Mornnb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The EXIF information is why.

It makes it easy to apply the lens correction profile in Lightroom, you just turn it on and it knows the lens that was used.

Additionally, it's nice for viewers of the photo to be able to check which lens was used. Sites like Flickr etc will show it based on the EXIF.

[philcycles]

As an aside, I do almost no post processing. Among other things I was a TV cameraman and learned to frame the shot quickly to the director's satisfaction. And that experience taught me to compose a shot. I don't like the over processed look many photos have today.

The irony is that I did audio post production for several decades. Production too.

[lct]

As good a cameraman as you can be you cannot make disappear red or cyan shifts in the corners of your pics without lens coding or PP, unless you don't use wider lenses than 28mm of course, which could explain your question.

[philcycles]

As good a cameraman as you can be you cannot make disappear red or cyan shifts in the corners of your pics without lens coding or PP, unless you don't use wider lenses than 28mm of course, which could explain your question.

I use a 28 Elmarit, a 20 Nikkor and a Contax zoom with a 28 at the low end.

No color shifts, no problems.

My old Super Angulon, not so much.

[jaapv]

SLR lenses will not show colour shift.

[lct]

+1

[Luke_Miller]

For the tiny minority that use flash  - that device would like to know the lens focal length.

[Bill W]

All of my lens are coded since the M8 and Leica gave free coding I think for two lens. I had to have only one lens coded since that time when I bought a 50 that was not. I am sure there are a lot of folks that do not worry or care about lens detection. Since all of mine are coded I do not worry about it, automatic detection takes care of that.

[AndrewDD]

 I don't like the over processed look many photos have today.

 

 +1,000.

A little colour balance & exposure correction, and maybe some cropping. No more. Too many photos look like cartoons these days.

[Tailwagger]

Hi... I thought I would revive this thread as a I have a few questions about correction profiles with respect to both uncoded native and third party lenses. In the case of the latter, I know that people either manually or through encoding select the closest Leica equivalent.  But I note that LR provides specific sets of profiles for both Zeiss and CV lens. My question is whether or not the in camera corrections are destructive in any way.  i.e. if I select or encode an equivalent, is the content of the raw file modified in some way or is the correction information independent from the pixels so that in post you can select the true profile and get the manufacturers intended result? If indeed in camera correction modifies the content, it would seem to me that best approach would be to avoid coding altogether and just manually correct in post. 

 

With native Leica lenses I assume the issue might be less critical, but I also note that in LR at least where most lenses like the 35 and 50mm Summicrons are treated the same regardless of version, the new Summarit 2.4s have their own profiles separate from the previous 2.5 generation. Perhaps they have a different set of codes, or perhaps the names are different but the content is the same. It did strike me as odd though as I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the basic formulation of these lenses was essentially unchanged while the Summicrons have changed pretty significantly over the decades. I certainly would have thought that any of the pre-ASPH lens would demand a different profile from their newer versions.  The lens I'm most seriously considering is a Summilux 75mm. Perhaps I'm over rotating on this issue, but I'm a little concerned about encountering some oddities given the cost and there currently is no specific LR profile.  I would have thought that neither of the available 75mm profiles, Summicron APO or Summarit, would be particular close in terms of color, distortion or vignetting characteristics. Perhaps no profile is best? Or perhaps profiles for the early lens are available elsewhere?

 

Apologies if this sounds confused, somewhat reflects my current lack of understanding.

[lct]

Vignetting is very well controlled on the 75/1.4 which doesn't show any significant distortion nor color shifts either so this lens does not need any more correction than those available on good raw converters. I have no experience with it though so take what i say with a pinch of salt.

[bocaburger]

Hi... I thought I would revive this thread as a I have a few questions about correction profiles with respect to both uncoded native and third party lenses. In the case of the latter, I know that people either manually or through encoding select the closest Leica equivalent.  But I note that LR provides specific sets of profiles for both Zeiss and CV lens.

I didn't know that about LR, but although I have it I no longer use it since I went from M9 to M240 and can now shoot JPEGs consistently without having to resort to DNG.  However the only body for which I found the closest Leica equivalent coding worked for wide angle CV lenses was the M8.  From the M9 on I found the code for the 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH worked better than the 16mm WATE code for the CV 15mm (V.1) as well as the 21/4 (on the M8 I could use the ASPH code), and the 28 Elmarit v.4 code works better with my 28/1.9 CV than the 28 Summicron code. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

The in-camera corrections are for vignetting (colour and optical) only. The LR corrections are for distortion. In a sense both are destructive in a sense that the camera corrections will change the brightness values in the corners, but the LR ones shift pixels. For both kinds you'll be hard put to see any quality loss- in other  words - of no relevance.

[Tailwagger]

The in-camera corrections are for vignetting (colour and optical) only. The LR corrections are for distortion. In a sense both are destructive in a sense that the camera corrections will change the brightness values in the corners, but the LR ones shift pixels. For both kinds you'll be hard put to see any quality loss- in other  words - of no relevance.

 

So over-rotating, good to know. Thanks!