bernie.lcf Posted June 19, 2015 Share #81 Posted June 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Or, are you saying that when a Q profile is available in ACR it will offer a truly raw interpretation of the DNG? If you have a recent copy of Lightroom or Photoshop, you will notice that it is showing you a little "i" and a message saying that the camera lens corrections have been applied automatically. This is independent from the lens correction profile functionality in Lightroom (that uses profiles that come with ACR not the ones embedded in the DNG file). The corresponding checkbox is unchecked. Please, see the attached screenshots! In other words: whatever is in the DNG gets applied by Adobe automatically and cannot be configured Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246507-puts-weighs-in-on-q%E2%80%A6and-more/?do=findComment&comment=2838449'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 Hi bernie.lcf, Take a look here Puts weighs in on Q…and more. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jmahto Posted June 19, 2015 Share #82 Posted June 19, 2015 I liked the Q, it's going to work well for those who are all in, no doubt. But that lens is darn huge, as can be seen in the attached photos of it and my M6 with a 28 elmarit and 35 1.4 attached. My gut tells me the lens on the Q could be a bit intimidating to those who would be a subject, in my opinion anyway.... Be careful what we wish for (an AF M). The size of AF M lenses are going to be big (if not huge). Sony FF is realizing that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 19, 2015 Share #83 Posted June 19, 2015 I was not the only one to talk of how it looks on the receiving end, a number of people said the same thing, like it was a Canon or a Nikon pointed at them. It's not any kind of deal breaker, just something to be aware of when considering the camera. Yes, i see your point...very similar. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 7 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246507-puts-weighs-in-on-q%E2%80%A6and-more/?do=findComment&comment=2838453'>More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 19, 2015 Share #84 Posted June 19, 2015 Maybe I am being naive... but does it really matter? Surely the point is, 'this is what you get out of the Leica Q, this is what the files look like, does this meet or exceed your expectations for the camera?' I don't really care whether the camera has software corrections due to 'distortion' in the 28mm lens that is only visible when you deliberately get rid of the in camera processing... (who would do that anyway... isn't it a bit weird to try to find 'fault' when there really isn't one????) Its a camera with a fixed lens. It's output looks stunning and by all reports it is a joy to use. It suits some people absolutely. What more is there to talk about...? It's a sweet camera and a great creative tool. There's no problem with it. The point about distortion is that the lens is not at the level of an M lens, and that was not likely considering the price. So when people say things like "With the Q you get a 28mm Summilux and the body thrown in for free" — that's not really accurate — not even close when you see the level of uncorrected distortion. It's just a case of getting what you pay for. Had they made it better, it would not doubt have cost much more. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #85 Posted June 19, 2015 It's a sweet camera and a great creative tool. There's no problem with it. The point about distortion is that the lens is not at the level of an M lens, and that was not likely considering the price. So when people say things like "With the Q you get a 28mm Summilux and the body thrown in for free" — that's not really accurate — not even close when you see the level of uncorrected distortion. It's just a case of getting what you pay for. Had they made it better, it would not doubt have cost much more. But why would you even want to see the level of uncorrected distortion? Do you want to see what the image looks like halfway through your Summilux? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 19, 2015 Share #86 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) If I look around me at other boy's toys, I get a distinct impression that money is the least of obstacles..Bicycles, boats, cars, watches,golf club sets, you name it, all at sums with impressive numbers of zeroes... Imagine the Q in patent leather, or black alligator skin; it's a perfect ladies camera. Next to that DSLR it looks like a dingy, lifeboat. Edited June 19, 2015 by pico 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #87 Posted June 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, a market for Morgan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted June 19, 2015 Share #88 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Yes, i see your point...very similar.Just passing on the feedback yo, we all have opinions. I think it feels and works great and let's face it, any really good shooter will make the modest size of the lens not matter. Edited June 19, 2015 by Ai_Print Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 19, 2015 Author Share #89 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Just passing on the feedback yo, we all have opinions. And those opinions on camera 'intrusion', as perceived by subjects, is often more influenced by the photographer's style and behavior than by the gear used. But objectively, the Q 'system' is tiny compared to many DSLRs. Jeff Edited June 19, 2015 by Jeff S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 19, 2015 Share #90 Posted June 19, 2015 But why would you even want to see the level of uncorrected distortion? Do you want to see what the image looks like halfway through your Summilux? The point is not about wanting to see it. The point is that with the Q you're not getting a lens with traditional Leica quality. No doubt the software does a good job of masking that, but it's not the same as better lenses that don't need as much correction. See gpwhite's comment above. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 19, 2015 Share #91 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) The point is not about wanting to see it. The point is that with the Q you're not getting a lens with traditional Leica quality. No doubt the software does a good job of masking that, but it's not the same as better lenses that don't need as much correction. See gpwhite's comment above. A 28mm Summilux is $6,000...did you seriously expect the same lens in a system that cost $2000 less including an advanced compact body? The lens is a great lens for the $$ and does offer traditional Leica quality and look. Lets please stop comparing it to a lens costing 300% more? Personally I couldn't be happier with the performance of the lens and the Q overall. I could care less what is happening in software. Edited June 19, 2015 by digitalfx Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 19, 2015 Share #92 Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) A 28mm Summilux is $6,000...did you seriously expect the same lens in a system that cost $2000 less including an advanced compact body? The lens is a great lens for the $$ and does offer traditional Leica quality and look. Lets please stop comparing it to a lens costing 300% more? Personally I couldn't be happier with the performance of the lens and the Q overall. I could care less what is happening in software. Did you read what I wrote???: "The point about distortion is that the lens is not at the level of an M lens, and that was not likely considering the price." That's basically your point. Of course it's not as good as lens that costs so much more. I also wrote "It's just a case of getting what you pay for. Had they made it better, it would not doubt have cost much more." So, NO, I did not expect it to be as good as a $6,000 lens, as I thought I had made perfectly clear. I was responding to the person who wrote (above): "Leica lenses are superior to any in the market. When you are getting a Summilux 2.8/1.7 for almost the price of a lens+body, what's the problem? The Q is a classic example of selling the lens and giving the body free." Edited June 19, 2015 by zlatkob 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted June 19, 2015 Share #93 Posted June 19, 2015 And those opinions on camera 'intrusion', as perceived by subjects, is often more influenced by the photographer's style and behavior than by the gear used. OK, you are right, digitalfx is right, none of what I say matters, at all....I get that now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2015 Share #94 Posted June 19, 2015 The point is not about wanting to see it. The point is that with the Q you're not getting a lens with traditional Leica quality. No doubt the software does a good job of masking that, but it's not the same as better lenses that don't need as much correction. See gpwhite's comment above. You are missing the point. One cannot separate optical correction from digital correction. The optical corrections to the lens system were designed with digital corrections in mind. The software is not masking, but is an integral part of the correction. Like it or not, but this kind of integration is the way things are working nowadays, and not just with imaging systems. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted June 19, 2015 Share #95 Posted June 19, 2015 Some professionals do use Leica but to say it's a pro camera is incorrect. Professionals use Canon and Nikon largely. They need the lens and accessory range. Fuji cameras are probably even less used by professionals. Leicas market is advanced amateurs, pros second cameras and a limited use in the fine art pro world. I don't see anything wrong with this target group. To survive Leica needs to make desirable cameras which produce excellent results. It helps to have a fair dose of niche innovation. Some products have been a bit hit and miss lately, but the M, Monochrom, X1, X2, S and now Q are reviewed highly and seem to be selling well, although only Leica knows. I am sure that further developments of M, S, Q, X and T will be more hit then miss. The progression is easy to see. The X has seen steady improvement and with last year's X113 was finally there in terms of lens and sensor, with only the lack of built-in viewfinder really holding it back. The Q clearly takes the X DNA a step further. I wouldn't call any of the X, Q or T cameras misses in terms of performance, but more of marketing. The X Vario is extremely well regarded by those who use it and the image quality is simply superb, but its marketing campaign was an epic failure. The X 113 took a lot of flack for the variable aperture, flack which could easily have been avoided if this behavior was mentioned and explained clearly. The T needed stabilization, either in the body or its lenses and again a built-in EVF. Despite their flaws though, these all remain outstanding cameras. I know of an excellent professional photographer in Mexico who uses an X2 as his primary camera, and while I am strictly an amateur, my X 113 is with me far more often than my M-E or M Monochrom and never once have I found it lacking in image quality. I'm very interested in the Q, mainly for its 28mm lens and built-in EVF. I mainly shoot 50mm on my Ms, and am now trying to make the very difficult choice between a 28mm M lens or a Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 20, 2015 Share #96 Posted June 20, 2015 You are missing the point. One cannot separate optical correction from digital correction. The optical corrections to the lens system were designed with digital corrections in mind. The software is not masking, but is an integral part of the correction. Like it or not, but this kind of integration is the way things are working nowadays, and not just with imaging systems. This is very true. But, digital correction is cheaper for the manufacturer than optical correction. Leica lenses have always been renowned for being optically superior. That's not strictly the case now is it. They make nice software though. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted June 20, 2015 Share #97 Posted June 20, 2015 I'm very interested in the Q, mainly for its 28mm lens and built-in EVF. I mainly shoot 50mm on my Ms, and am now trying to make the very difficult choice between a 28mm M lens or a Q. I was making the same choice, was about to order the 28mm Summilux when the Q arrived. I bought the Q instead and couldn't be more pleased. Think of it as a companion to the M. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2015 Share #98 Posted June 20, 2015 Cheaper, as evidenced by the reasonable price of the Q, certainly. But it also gives the lens designer more degrees of freedom to design a lens within parameters that were impossible in the past. I cannot imagine that it would be possible to design a 28 mm lens with an aperture of 1.7 and a similar quality at this size (and, admittedly, pricepoint) without digital corrections. earleygallery, on 20 Jun 2015 - 02:03, said: This is very true. But, digital correction is cheaper for the manufacturer than optical correction. Leica lenses have always been renowned for being optically superior. That's not strictly the case now is it. They make nice software though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 20, 2015 Share #99 Posted June 20, 2015 Cheaper, as evidenced by the reasonable price of the Q, certainly. But it also gives the lens designer more degrees of freedom to design a lens within parameters that were impossible in the past. I cannot imagine that it would be possible to design a 28 mm lens with an aperture of 1.7 and a similar quality at this size (and, admittedly, pricepoint) without digital corrections. Indeed and for a fixed lens camera like the Q it makes perfect sense, as the lens can never be used on its own. It's not the same as an M or R Summilux lens however. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 20, 2015 Share #100 Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) You are missing the point. One cannot separate optical correction from digital correction. The optical corrections to the lens system were designed with digital corrections in mind. The software is not masking, but is an integral part of the correction. Of course, the hardware and software are a system designed to work together. But you can separate one from the other. Just open the raw file in a converter that doesn't apply the corrections. In the Fred Miranda thread I linked above, the guy said he opened the image in RawTherapee. It looks really bad. The distortion and black corners (not just vignetted) look Holga-ish. I tried opening a raw file in Irridient Developer and: same result. Again, it's not a case of wanting to see the uncorrected image. Rather I'm noting that optically this lens is not ... well, what Leica is known for. OPTICALLY it's not what we've come to expect from a Summilux or Summicron, despite having that name. And, of course, no one should be expecting it to perform like a $6,000 lens. But still, seeing the uncorrected image is a little shocking. I suspect that if Canon/Sony/Nikon were the only ones doing such substantial software correction and Leica weren't, it would be a selling point of the Leica brand and something that users would boast about. But now that Leica is doing it, it seems to be something that is considered insignificant and ignored. Still, it's an exciting camera that will provide a lot of joy to its users. Edited June 20, 2015 by zlatkob 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now