Jump to content

Thoughts on DigiLLoyd's Review of the Q

barjohn
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

viramati
viramati

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

jaapv
jaapv

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 s

Winedemonium
Winedemonium

As a photography hobbyist I feel like I turned a corner with this camera.   I did pay attention to the reviews. But I feel like I knew more about what I really wanted and whether this camera would

Posted Images

sblitz

sblitz

Posted
Posted

The image is just fine the usage is fine that trees don't have a bend that wasn't there in real life and I just damn felt like showing it rather than delve into a debate among those who haven't used the camera. The picture is there. Make of it what you will. I care not what your conclusion is. I care only to show that the Q is damn good camera for what it is and I am not going degenerate its value because it isn't something it want ever intended to be. Ok?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
imants

imants

Posted
Posted (edited)
trees don't have a bend

 

sure the software took care of that and does so with most cameras .. 

I care only to show that the Q is damn good camera for what it is and I am not going degenerate its value because it isn't something it want ever intended to be.Ok?

 

 Explain, this does not make sense

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

jaapv

Posted
Posted

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

As Erwin Puts wrote me: "That distortion is corrected in software is a  characteristic of modern digital-optical design. The Purist may have a problem with it but in this case the Purist is too puristic. The parameters that are valid for M lenses cannot be applied to a compact digital, no matter how much M DNA it may contain."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
prk60091

prk60091

Posted
Posted

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

In the 2 days I have used it-it feels 'easier' to master than my X1 which took several months to work out its quirks.

 

The Q feels good in my hand. The EVF is amazing and the files need little work.

 

My biggest fear was the FL and that is a non issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jvansmit

Guest jvansmit

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While the Q has some (annoying) issues, image quality is not one of them. The files continue to blow me away as does the very fast AF and excellent metering in difficult light conditions.

 

These early reviews sometimes make me think that they operate in a different photographic world to mine. I don't recollect any of them mentioning that manual focus goes past infinity, or that face detection is marginal in lowish light or beyond 2-3 meters, or that it's too easy to inadvertently dial in EV compensation if you're in aperture priority mode. I think Sean Reid grizzled that there are no focus marks between 2m and infinity but the others reviews didn't seem to think that's important. 

 

Off topic, sorry, but I can report that my Q got quite wet a couple of times this week, caught out in monsoon rains. It was fine, no misting or freezing though I have covered the microphone holes on top of the camera. Mine has also bounced off concrete once too, and, apart from some scrapes, is fine.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
bernie.lcf

bernie.lcf

Posted
Posted

I am a subscriber of Sean's site and have never been persuaded to subscribe to Lloyd as well. Therefore, I just wanted to ask the question:

 

Does the review state any mathematical measurement to justify calling characterizing the Q lens "extremely high level of distortion" and "significant resolution loss"? Something we can compare to other lenses on the market?

 

As far as I can tell, there is distortion and resolution loss. However, I cannot call any of it extreme - I am comparing to Canon L lenses and the higher end Nikons I have used.

 

In order to call the distortion "extremely high", it needs to be in the top 10% of its peer group. Otherwise this is very subjective bashing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kkonkkrete

kkonkkrete

Posted
Posted

You know what, I think Leica should have applied the digital correction in camera, so that nobody would ever find out about it.  Perhaps it would slow down writing the DNGs, but I'm sure they could find some kind of solution.  It's just a marketing issue.  Nobody ever needs to see the uncorrected images, what's the point in looking at them? Do people want to look at the raw Bayer matrix outputs before the demosaicing algorithm is applied? The digital corrections are part of the lens design.  It's like complaining about the image quality you would get between the 10th and 11th optical element in the lens.

 

The IQ of the Q is fine.  From what I've seen, perhaps a touch over-saturated in the colours.  Perhaps some occasional auto-exposure issues.  But nothing related to the digital lens correction.  The pre-correction distortion is not stopping anyone from taking good photos.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
viramati

viramati

Posted
Posted

You know what, I think Leica should have applied the digital correction in camera, so that nobody would ever find out about it.  Perhaps it would slow down writing the DNGs, but I'm sure they could find some kind of solution.

The digital correction is applied in camera and the uncorrected file can't be accessed unless you have special software. at least that is my understanding as in LR6 it isn't possible to see an uncorrected file.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted (edited)

well.... I know this has probably been illustrated elsewhere ..... but this is the degree of manipulation involved in a normal real-world Leica Q image .......

 

first is uncorrected:

 

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 by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted

and this is the Leica DNG from LR......

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted (edited)

There is some inevitable distortion of the corners in particular:

 

From measurements .......

 

image difference at centre                              0%  (unsurprisingly)

 

cross above banner by door on left:               3.75% larger on the corrected DNG image

 

lantern top left corner:                                    9.9% larger on the corrected DNG image

 

If that's unacceptable to you ....... tough ........ you either have a small compact camera with images that are mildly compromised at the edges or spend a lot more money for something much bigger .......

 

For comparison, here are a similar pair from the X-Vario ....... at about 26/27mm (from about 2 years ago)

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted (edited)

X-Vario Uncorrected :

 

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 by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted (edited)

X-Vario Corrected DNG as it appears in LR:

 

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 by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted (edited)

There is some loss of definition ...... but mostly because of the enlargement ...... this pair are 1:1 crops unsharpened (Q images) .....

 

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!

          

 

I suppose if you were mad enough to use this camera professionally for architectural purposes I suppose you would be very disgruntled .......but for reportage and other non-professional usage I can't really see a problem ......

 

...... although we will see what BarJohn's judgement is .......

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

microview

Posted
Posted

well.... I know this has probably been illustrated elsewhere ..... but this is the degree of manipulation involved in a normal real-world Leica Q image .......

 

first is uncorrected:

 

attachicon.gifL1100036-HDR.jpg

Presumably the colours are less true in the Vario pics, although cold blue cast in the Q can be moderated?

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Overgaard

Overgaard

Posted
Posted

I think the thin to note is that Leica doesn't apply digital correction to their M lenses but to the Q and V lenses. As does other manufacturers of smaller cameras. Sean Reid has an article on the whole subject of SDC:
 "Software Distortion Correction"

 

It's all very disappointing if you thought the Leica Q 28mm/1.7 lens would be of the same quality as the Leica M 28/1.4.

 

Digital correction is a way to take a shortcut in lens size and price so as to make it look like the lenses that didn't take any shortcuts.

 

But if you buy a Fiat 500, you may feel some of the excitement as if you bought a Maserati. But when you open the engine room, you will notice they didn't use the same engine. 

  • 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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...