Puts weighs in on Q…and more

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would rule AF out with the M mount. In any event the MF is sublime. It's a major advantage of the M line.

Edited June 18, 2015 by colonel

[jdlaing]

Ditto.

[Advertisement]

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

[zlatkob]

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.

 

From what I've read, it appears the lens has quite a bit of distortion, so I'm not sure this 28/1.7 qualifies as superior to any in the market. From a business perspective, had they made the Q a system camera with interchangeable lenses, Leica would not be selling the lens and giving the body free, but rather selling the body with a lens, and then selling another lens, and selling another lens, and selling another lens, etc.

[Ozkar]

From what I've read, it appears the lens has quite a bit of distortion, so I'm not sure this 28/1.7 qualifies as superior to any in the market. From a business perspective, had they made the Q a system camera with interchangeable lenses, Leica would not be selling the lens and giving the body free, but rather selling the body with a lens, and then selling another lens, and selling another lens, and selling another lens, etc.

 

The Q lens is definitely not superior to "any in the market".  As far as I can tell, it may be a little better than the $400 Sony 28/2.

[bernie.lcf]

The Q lens is definitely not superior to "any in the market".  As far as I can tell, it may be a little better than the $400 Sony 28/2.

 

Probably in the upper 20%. I have a hard time finding 28/1.8 that are better (Nikon FX, for example)... however, all those f1.8 lenses are quite a bit cheaper.

[jaapv]

From what I've read, it appears the lens has quite a bit of distortion, so I'm not sure this 28/1.7 qualifies as superior to any in the market. From a business perspective, had they made the Q a system camera with interchangeable lenses, Leica would not be selling the lens and giving the body free, but rather selling the body with a lens, and then selling another lens, and selling another lens, and selling another lens, etc.

It has no distortion, unless you remove half the correction.

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It has no distortion, unless you remove half the correction.

 

I'm not sure how you can say "it has no distortion, unless you remove half the correction".  The correction is not a property of a lens, but a software method of addressing a problem with the lens.  It appears to have extreme distortion, requiring correction ... http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1370077/3#13057657

[gpwhite]

I'm not sure how you can say "it has no distortion, unless you remove half the correction".  The correction is not a property of a lens, but a software method of addressing a problem with the lens.  It appears to have extreme distortion, requiring correction ... http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1370077/3#13057657

 

I think we are reading the beginnings of a new, never-ending thread along the lines of "in-camera processing vs. post-processing: which is most pure?"

 

I am surprised that Jaap writes posts such a strong endorsement of the Q's in camera processing, but...

 

After a few hundred shots comparing Q to M (both with 28), it seems quite obvious to me that the Q is applying more processing than the M. Even after applying Stefan Daniel's advice to turn off IS when not shooting movies (who actually shoots movies anyways?), the DNG looks tweaked as you open it ACR. For example, the CA wildly evident in both 28 SM and 28 SX is essentially removed in DNG written by the Q 28/ 1.7, and there must also be sharpening going on in the Maestro II that makes the center pop.

 

But, does this suggest that the Q's in-camera processing also damages raw files in a fashion similar to SONY's mangling of A7 output? I don't think so, and, I guess, I hope not. The Q is a wonderful creative tool, which is what a camera is.

 

I think we need one of those long threads that keeps winding back on itself where Jaap, RickLeica and others debate the fine nuances of what types of distortion, in- vs. post, are less or more offensive. This thread could be linked to a blog post from Puts that extols of the purity of a Q recording onto his favorite black-and-white film instead of a silicon chip (he will omit commentary about both methods of light transduction requiring further processing). 

[jaapv]

.

 

After a few hundred shots comparing Q to M (both with 28), it seems quite obvious to me that the Q is applying more processing than the M. Even after applying Stefan Daniel's advice to turn off IS when not shooting movies (who actually shoots movies anyways?), the DNG looks tweaked as you open it ACR. For example, the CA wildly evident in both 28 SM and 28 SX is essentially removed in DNG written by the Q 28/ 1.7, and there must also be sharpening going on in the Maestro II that makes the center pop.

 

 

Digital "sharpening" does not increase sharpness. It merely enhances edge contrast.

The CA is probably corrected optically, but has a penalty in the form of distortion, which in turn can be corrected relatively harmlessly by digital means.

[bernie.lcf]

But, does this suggest that the Q's in-camera processing also damages raw files in a fashion similar to SONY's mangling of A7 output? I don't think so, and, I guess, I hope not. The Q is a wonderful creative tool, which is what a camera is.

 

 

The Leica Q applies lens corrections to JPG files - no doubt about it.

However, it does not touch the DNG RAW file. It merely puts the instructions for lens correction into the file and leaves the rest to the software on your desktop. It just so happens that Adobe doesn't allow the user to switch the correction on or off. Any correction instructions found in the DNG will be applied to the file no questions asked.

 

The DNG file itself is as pure as it gets and certainly better than any of the Sony cameras because Sony applies lossy compression to their RAW files and a lot of sites have done their pixel peeping and come to the conclusion that the compression creates artefacts.

[colonel]

The DNG file itself is as pure as it gets and certainly better than any of the Sony cameras because Sony applies lossy compression to their RAW files and a lot of sites have done their pixel peeping and come to the conclusion that the compression creates artefacts.

Although for the M8 and M9 everyone said they couldn't see a difference between lossy compressed and uncompressed

Edited June 19, 2015 by colonel

[Bill Livingston]

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...?

[bernie.lcf]

Although for the M8 and M9 everyone said they couldn't see a difference between lossy compressed and uncompressed

 

Uhm, I cannot set compression level on my M8... I am assuming it is lossless

 

 

In any case, these guys have a good analysis of the Sony A7 situation:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7-ii/3

[Ai_Print]

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....

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!

Edited June 19, 2015 by Ai_Print

[digitalfx]

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....

 

LOL...the lens is larger than an M lens, but no more "intimidating". Personally I find it to balance well with the body.

[Ai_Print]

One more for good measure...

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!

[bernie.lcf]

Well, yes... it has a stabilizer, a macro mode and an AF engine...

[Ai_Print]

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.

[gpwhite]

Digital "sharpening" does not increase sharpness. It merely enhances edge contrast.

The CA is probably corrected optically, but has a penalty in the form of distortion, which in turn can be corrected relatively harmlessly by digital menans.

 

Sharpness is perceived by edge contrast. Indeed, the brain has many millions of edges detectors that are organized just to determine where to foveate to optimally achieve one's goals. Increasing edge contrast, either by focusing an optic or differentially amplifying certain edges over others in post processing (which is what cortical vision is all about), yields what we see as a sharper image.

 

You write rather simply about "relatively harmlessly" digital distortion correction. How do you quantify that? Or you just guessing that the Q eliminates CA optically and, as a trade off, is then obliged to make some adjustment of the peripheral pixel data to correct for spatial distortion?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[gpwhite]

The Leica Q applies lens corrections to JPG files - no doubt about it.

However, it does not touch the DNG RAW file. It merely puts the instructions for lens correction into the file and leaves the rest to the software on your desktop. It just so happens that Adobe doesn't allow the user to switch the correction on or off. Any correction instructions found in the DNG will be applied to the file no questions asked.

 

 

In ACR, I do not click on the lens corrections when using the M embedded profile. Clicking back and forth, the correction applied on 28 and wider is pretty obvious. The Q, of course, does not yet have a profile in ACR. Are you saying that ACR, even with the M profile, is applying lens corrections? Or, are you saying that when a Q profile is available in ACR it will offer a truly raw interpretation of the DNG?