Jump to content

Thoughts on DigiLLoyd's Review of the Q


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lloyd has just posted his review and testing on the Q (Note it is a paid site subscription),there is some of what he has to say in the free portion of the site.  While some of his negatives would really depend on the user's intended use and can be easily discounted by a user with a different set of priorities than his, the one that would be of greatest concern to many users is his discussion of the optics and their extremely high level of distortion that while corrected in software results in significant resolution loss giving one (in his estimation) only about 18mp out of the 24mp the sensor is capable of achieving.  Since I have one on order, I would be interested in the opinions of owners that have a camera.  Also, his observation appears to fly in the face of the tests performed by Tech Radar.  On the other hand he has been right more often than wrong on many issues including the issue of shutter shock and its effect on image sharpness.  Please don't make this a post about him or his blog but focus on the issues he raises and how they impact your usage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the best photos in the world are taken with pedestrian lenses, and the photos I've taken that I consider "keepers" never once considered whether I was incurring resolution loss with my choice of camera/lens/sensor.  I got the shot I wanted.  

 

In critical studio work with a fair amount of cropping and post required, then yes... but then I'd never choose a Leica either.  There's a lot of spectacular medium format stuff that is purpose built to do that stuff all day long.  The Leica Q is not for that stuff.

 

I buy new cameras for low light capabilities, dynamic range, and overall sharpness.  The rest is up to me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

God save us from some of these reviews. I have had the Q for a week now and every day I am more and more impressed about the thought that has gone into making this camera. Of course it is not perfect and has some issues I would like to see dealt with in firmware updates but on the whole for me it is near perfect. As to the lens and IQ I really find it hard to fault (apart with some problems with banding in shadow areas at high iso in under exposed areas) micro-detail and sharpness across the frame are more than excellent even at the wider apertures and the bokeh that you can get at 1.7 is ideal for environmental portraits. In real world photography and if you want the best combination of a 28mm, AF and M type body this is the camera to get. On a final not I believe I am seeing this Q producing sharper shots across the frame than my M and 28 summicron asph did even stopped down so personally I find this whole hoo-ha about electronically corrected lenses as to be a over the top.

 

As for this comment he makes

Initial assessment reveals a Leica Q 28mm f/1.7 lens with massive optical distortion that results in compromised sharpness in substantial areas of the frame.

Absolute bol***ks.  Sorry I don't normally make remarks like this but I totally disagree with his assessment 

 

I have no hesitation in recommending this camera to anyone who loves the 28mm FOV. Buy it and go out and enjoy taking photographs with it.

Edited by viramati
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

..... the optics and their extremely high level of distortion that while corrected in software results in significant resolution loss giving one (in his estimation) only about 18mp out of the 24mp the sensor is capable of achieving.

Which is I assume conjecture, and conjecture is not fact. The problem is that whatever the optical designers and software engineers do, someone will think that it was the wrong thing to do. A fast wide-angle is going to be a compromise. Adjusting the aberrations physically in the actual lens design to minimise them may well (or has) result ed) is substantial distortion, which can then be corrected in software. The real question is whether the resulting file is better than the alternative of a lesser corrected optical system with less distortion correction in software? Given that the optical designers and software engineers are probably the only people who understand the full implications of their collaboration, its difficult to reach an objective conclusion on this. I personally would assume that the image file represents the best compromise available for the lens parameters.

 

I also have to admit that I'm a bit disturbed by the high degree of reliance given to graphs and figures (a bit like the whole ETTR debate). The bottom line is the image; its resolved detail, clarity and tonality - which can be expressed in figures and graphs, but are often more subjective than such interpretation suggests we should believe.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing lens resolution to sensor resolution in terms of MP is really complete nonsense.

It seems to escape his notice that resolution through an optical system is given in LP/mm@contrast. MP is simply the number of pixels/sensels on the sensor, nothing more.

 

We have hade this distortion discussion extensively in the forum and it turns out that this lens/sensor combination is exceedingly good

for its price and size.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean let's get real here is another of his comments

 

  • No built-in flash. This immediately makes it hugely inferior to the wonderful Ricoh GR for doing things like backlit portraits. Carry a bulky hot-shoe flash around that is awkward and unbalanced when mounted? No thanks. Did that with too many cameras—I’m 'done' with that kind of nonsense.

 

He even spends a whole paragraph on the fact that the the Q comes without a lens cap when the lens hood is on and only realised that the one that comes with it actually goes over the lens hood as well after other people pointed this out to him, and he's reviewing the camera  :lol:

 

Once again I don't normally take issue with reviewers in this way but all I agree with here is his 'I’m 'done' with that kind of nonsense'.

 

The only reviewer I have any respect for (apart from Jono Slack who tests for leica) is Ming Thein

Edited by viramati
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the full review he acknowledges that many of his quibbles relate to the way he uses a camera and his needs and that they might not bother someone else with a different use.  His examples usually do a good job of illustrating his points but he does have a somewhat brash and sometimes condescending style.

 

I am anxious to try the Q for myself as I think it hits more good points than it misses.  For me and my use, the fast AF and built in high quality EVF are a must and it appears to have both.  Easy portability is highly desirable because it sits at home if it isn't and I wind up using my iPhone that is always in my pocket.  I like the hand grip and finger loop and have already purchased the hand grip.  Having a fast lens is important given the high cost of the SF26 flash and generally poor reviews on using it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let’s face it - that wonderful little pop-up flash on many DSLR’s pentaprisms will give an amazing “scared-rabbit” look that more professional flashes cannot match... :D

That is pretty funny!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have it and love it. Would be more amazed iif digilloyd liked a Leica. It is a perfect camera for carrying about with lots of mechanical control to shape the shot you want. If you want a Leica S buy one. Don't be disappointed Q isn't one. Q is better than my M9 was. With cropping etc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with his reviews - and I am a subscriber - is that they have gradually become very emotional and pompous. It is no doubt a clever strategy and the fact that we are discussing his review does demonstrate that.

 

I find it hard to take most things he writes these days at face value as he tends to focus on something little and make it into a major issue whilst at the same time constantly promoting Zeiss which has become a bit tedious.

 

The points raised in his review are valid but grossly exaggerated.

 

If I had read his review last month - wrongly assuming that he is an objective reviewer - I would have never bought the camera. I have however used the Q for nearly a month now and could not be happier.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Case in point --- Vermont forest taken yesterday afternoon

 

 

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the full review he acknowledges that many of his quibbles relate to the way he uses a camera and his needs and that they might not bother someone else with a different use.  His examples usually do a good job of illustrating his points but he does have a somewhat brash and sometimes condescending style.

 

I am anxious to try the Q for myself as I think it hits more good points than it misses.  For me and my use, the fast AF and built in high quality EVF are a must and it appears to have both.  Easy portability is highly desirable because it sits at home if it isn't and I wind up using my iPhone that is always in my pocket.  I like the hand grip and finger loop and have already purchased the hand grip.  Having a fast lens is important given the high cost of the SF26 flash and generally poor reviews on using it.

 

To be honest, John, I'm not sure this camera is for you. You've been disappointed by Leica before, and this camera will surely have quirks that will bother you, much like some bother Digilloyd. All Leica cameras, in their own ways, are quirky - flawed for some, character for others. 

 

The trick is to understand what the are, and not worry too much about what they aren't. You can be sure they take very fine pictures. Digilloyd's conjecture about effective sensor size is just that. If you read elsewhere here, you will find a lengthy discussion about the fact that the sensor is actually larger than 24MP to allow for the digital correction. The 35mm crop is about 18MP (apparently). 

 

But all this really is secondary. If the camera sits in your hand nicely, you can master the buttons and you like the 28mm field of view, I'm sure you will take some beautiful pictures - many here have. But I seem to recall that Leica has not been a happy experience for you in the past. Why go back there?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 the one that would be of greatest concern to many users is his discussion of the optics and their extremely high level of distortion that while corrected in software results in significant resolution loss giving one (in his estimation) only about 18mp out of the 24mp the sensor is capable of achieving.

 

Lord knows where he gets these figures from or how he calculates them.

 

For all I care there could be a fairy in the camera manually processing the images in photoshop before saving them to the card ........ as long as the ultimate result is excellent image quality I don't really care how it is arrived at. 

 

The files are 43Mb ....... I somehow doubt they are short on resolution .....  :rolleyes:

 

I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised ........ most of the moans and groans that you were castigated for on the forum will almost certainly be addressed ........ although it's a bit bulkier than I would have liked ....

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, John, I'm not sure this camera is for you. You've been disappointed by Leica before, and this camera will surely have quirks that will bother you, much like some bother Digilloyd. All Leica cameras, in their own ways, are quirky - flawed for some, character for others. 

 

Personally I would say that this is the least quirky digital camera that Leica have made so far. Apart from the touch-screen LCD it is amazingly traditional in it's approach  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For all I care there could be a fairy in the camera manually processing the images in photoshop before saving them to the card ........ as long as the ultimate result is excellent image quality I don't really care how it is arrived at. 

 

If you hold down the button under the shutter release you can talk to the fairy and tell her how to process the images.  I have whispered "watch the corners dear", and it has worked.  In the hidden menu settings you can even change the language. :D

 

This makes as much sense as what DigiLloyd says about this camera.    I've had it for a couple of weeks and it is really really good.  As noted, it has some quirks, but it is easy to get used to and the files are superb.  At a recent party for a 99 year old aunt of my wife's, it produced very nice images, and surprised me with the quality of even the 35mm and 50mm crops (I experimented a bit).  As noted above by Viramati, I too put more stock in hands-on reviews from Jono and Ming Thein than those from somebody trying to create traffic on a paid website.  As far as I am concerned, Leica has made a winner.  Maybe even for John.  We'll see.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked a friend who is a subscriber to let me see the review. Very technical and strangely subjective at the same time.

 

I am surprised that SW corrections are being discussed as something evil. The Hasselblad DAC corrections were introduced years ago and DAC allowed Hasselblad to build fantastic super wide lens and the rest of the lens line improved significantly. DAC became a norm in the digital world.

If Lens/DAC combo gives the desired result and image quality than why I shall complain about the distortion I do not see on the final image.

 

If a small loss of resolution is too important to you , buy a high resolution system, there are plenty of them nowadays.

 

IMHO.

 

Yevgeny

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...