imants Posted July 4, 2015 Share #21 Posted July 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Case in point --- Vermont forest taken yesterday afternoon What is there in this image that addresses the initial posters questions .......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Hi imants, Take a look here Thoughts on DigiLLoyd's Review of the Q. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sblitz Posted July 5, 2015 Share #22 Posted July 5, 2015 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? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted July 5, 2015 Share #23 Posted July 5, 2015 (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 July 5, 2015 by Imants 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted July 5, 2015 Share #24 Posted July 5, 2015 I will be quite curious to see the distortion as I get my grubby paws on one next week it will be interesting how Raw Photo Processor 64 sees the files. Not buying just looking Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 5, 2015 Share #25 Posted July 5, 2015 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." 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted July 5, 2015 Share #26 Posted July 5, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jvansmit Posted July 5, 2015 Share #27 Posted July 5, 2015 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. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie.lcf Posted July 5, 2015 Share #28 Posted July 5, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted July 5, 2015 Share #29 Posted July 5, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted July 5, 2015 Share #30 Posted July 5, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 5, 2015 Share #31 Posted July 5, 2015 It is more that some raw converters do not read the applied corrections. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 5, 2015 Share #32 Posted July 5, 2015 (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 July 5, 2015 by thighslapper Quote 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/247306-thoughts-on-digilloyds-review-of-the-q/?do=findComment&comment=2847951'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 5, 2015 Share #33 Posted July 5, 2015 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! Quote 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/247306-thoughts-on-digilloyds-review-of-the-q/?do=findComment&comment=2847954'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 5, 2015 Share #34 Posted July 5, 2015 (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 July 5, 2015 by thighslapper Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 5, 2015 Share #35 Posted July 5, 2015 (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 July 5, 2015 by thighslapper Quote 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/247306-thoughts-on-digilloyds-review-of-the-q/?do=findComment&comment=2847959'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 5, 2015 Share #36 Posted July 5, 2015 (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 July 5, 2015 by thighslapper Quote 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/247306-thoughts-on-digilloyds-review-of-the-q/?do=findComment&comment=2847962'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 5, 2015 Share #37 Posted July 5, 2015 (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 July 5, 2015 by thighslapper 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites 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 ....... ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/247306-thoughts-on-digilloyds-review-of-the-q/?do=findComment&comment=2847974'>More sharing options...
microview Posted July 5, 2015 Share #38 Posted July 5, 2015 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: L1100036-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! Quote 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/247306-thoughts-on-digilloyds-review-of-the-q/?do=findComment&comment=2848025'>More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted July 5, 2015 Share #39 Posted July 5, 2015 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. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted July 5, 2015 Share #40 Posted July 5, 2015 It's even more disapointing when you link to a "give me money" site Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.