Mr.Q Posted November 8, 2015 Share #101 Posted November 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 42MP vs 24MP and a higher DR, also likely to be less banding at high ISO. As I said, they are "technically" better which doesn't necessarily equate to "subjectively" better, a lot of that is down to rendering preference and how/when/where you shoot. Yeah, my only gripe with the Q is the TowerJazz sensor, which is not ISO-less. I wish Leica would just buy sensors from Sony and stop messing with 2nd rate manufacturers like CMOSIS and TowerJazz. It hampers an otherwise perfect camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Hi Mr.Q, Take a look here Any Thoughts on How the New Sony RX1R II with 42mp Will Compare?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
alee Posted November 8, 2015 Share #102 Posted November 8, 2015 Yeah, my only gripe with the Q is the TowerJazz sensor, which is not ISO-less. I wish Leica would just buy sensors from Sony and stop messing with 2nd rate manufacturers like CMOSIS and TowerJazz. It hampers an otherwise perfect camera. Short of banding at extreme ISOs in darkness (where no digital Leica prior to the Q, and most cameras short of the newest Alphas has ever been able to produce results), I find it hard to complain about the Q's sensor. Surprised others find so much fault in what I consider to be one of the best sensors on the market. Calling CMOSIS and TowerJazz a 2nd rate manufacturer is laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 8, 2015 Share #103 Posted November 8, 2015 Short of banding at extreme ISOs in darkness (where no digital Leica prior to the Q, and most cameras short of the newest Alphas has ever been able to produce results), I find it hard to complain about the Q's sensor. Surprised others find so much fault in what I consider to be one of the best sensors on the market. Calling CMOSIS and TowerJazz a 2nd rate manufacturer is laughable. Incorrect, all the current Nikon's (Sony sensor) and Fuji's show no sign of banding at high ISO. And fyi, banding shows up in the shadows when post-processing as well.... http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/6 When it comes to FF sensors, Sony sensors are 1st rate, then there is everyone else. Sony sensors have the best ISO and DR performance by far. And they are ISO-invariant. So what are you finding laughable? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alee Posted November 8, 2015 Share #104 Posted November 8, 2015 Incorrect, all the current Nikon's (Sony sensor) and Fuji's show no sign of banding at high ISO. And fyi, banding shows up in the shadows when post-processing as well.... http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-q-typ116/6 When it comes to FF sensors, Sony sensors are 1st rate, then there is everyone else. Sony sensors have the best ISO and DR performance by far. And they are ISO-invariant. So what are you finding laughable? Considering most Leica's couldn't produce competent results at 3200, and even then it required b/w to hide color noise, in Leica's world, the sensor is certainly the best they have ever used. Yes, I do see the banding when pushed, but generally speaking unless you're shooting in extremes, I have not encountered it enough to make an issue of it. Studio tests are interesting but real world results are where cameras prove their capability. 2nd rate is stil amusing considering CMOSIS and TowerJazz both do a significant business in the imaging industry, even if not so much in the consumer photography space. You make them sound like some fly by night operation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 8, 2015 Share #105 Posted November 8, 2015 I'm just saying why settle when there is clearly a better option out there? Leica optics with Sony sensor (Leica calibrated) would a dream combo. And would you call this extreme? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/249835-leica-q-banding-noise/ The banding is a real world problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
seacat Posted November 12, 2015 Share #106 Posted November 12, 2015 For Australian buyers one area in which the Sony $A 5,500 will not compete with the Q $A 5,900 is $$$$$$. The RRP is out now on the Sony & the difference is only $400 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted November 18, 2015 Share #107 Posted November 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) yes i agree 100%, if Q would be 42mp also 28mm would be perfect allowing a 30+ mp 35mm crop It is also a question if the lens is sharp enough. Dpreview has now added their studio scene taken with the Sony RX2. Interstingly the image quality in terms of details is sharpnes not better than that ot the Leica Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted November 19, 2015 Share #108 Posted November 19, 2015 It is also a question if the lens is sharp enough. Dpreview has now added their studio scene taken with the Sony RX2. Interstingly the image quality in terms of details is sharpnes not better than that ot the Leica Q. Is see a Q wiping the floor with the Sony. Either there is user error or huge sample variation involved in DPR`s studio scene. If you add a Sigma Merrill to the comparison it`s not even funny any more. Besides superior sensors up to iso 400 the Sigmas lens corner and edge performance are so much better (and not because of software correction). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 19, 2015 Share #109 Posted November 19, 2015 As DPreview explains in their testing, this kind of field curvature is pretty typical with wide-angle lenses. The soft areas are simply out of focus. The Q does better, because as we all know, the curvature is fixed in-camera for a flat field. I never shoot brick walls at close range (or any kind of fine art photography) so I could care less about these results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mschoe Posted November 19, 2015 Share #110 Posted November 19, 2015 In my opinion the Q outperforms the RX1rII what surprised my a lot: http://bit.ly/1NFvr8t Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted November 19, 2015 Share #111 Posted November 19, 2015 You can't correct for field curvature in software. There may be lots wrong with the dpreview test, but unfair Q manipulation it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted November 19, 2015 Share #112 Posted November 19, 2015 As DPreview explains in their testing, this kind of field curvature is pretty typical with wide-angle lenses. The soft areas are simply out of focus. The Q does better, because as we all know, the curvature is fixed in-camera for a flat field. I never shoot brick walls at close range (or any kind of fine art photography) so I could care less about these results I disagree, I think you should also care. Both, the RX and the RXII have the same problem. It is not a question of shooting a brick wall at close range. You will exprience the same problem at infinity, e.g. landscape. Surrisingly, overall the imagequality of the Q is clearly superior despithe the smaller pixel number. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 20, 2015 Share #113 Posted November 20, 2015 You can't correct for field curvature in software. There may be lots wrong with the dpreview test, but unfair Q manipulation it isn't. You may be right or the Q may just have a different field curvature characteristic. Either way I agree that it's a flawed test (they test cameras with different focal lengths ie 55mm for A7RII, 85mm ) and I'm not that interested in corner performance at MFD unless it's macro lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted November 20, 2015 Share #114 Posted November 20, 2015 You may be right or the Q may just have a different field curvature characteristic. Either way I agree that it's a flawed test (they test cameras with different focal lengths ie 55mm for A7RII, 85mm ) and I'm not that interested in corner performance at MFD unless it's macro lens. Why do you think that the dpreview test is flawed? What is MFD, macro focus distance? The test scene measures roughly 160x120 cm, so with a full frame sensor it results in a demagnification of 44, or in other words you place the lens in 44 focal lengths distance. Usually optical designer takes this as infinity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmuussoni Posted November 20, 2015 Share #115 Posted November 20, 2015 In my opinion the Q outperforms the RX1rII what surprised my a lot: http://bit.ly/1NFvr8t To be fair that test does not tell much. The Sonnar 35/2 lens has stronger field curvature at close range when compared to infinity at f/5.6. So I would not read too much from this test, unless you tend to shoot brick walls at close range If you would focus to corners, the result would be very different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted November 20, 2015 Share #116 Posted November 20, 2015 To be fair that test does not tell much. The Sonnar 35/2 lens has stronger field curvature at close range when compared to infinity at f/5.6. So I would not read too much from this test, unless you tend to shoot brick walls at close range If you would focus to corners, the result would be very different Why? The test is performd at roughly 50 focal length at f/ 5.6, would you call that close distance? p.s. there is one point I can agreee, if you focus to the corners the result will be very different: the center is blured..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmuussoni Posted November 22, 2015 Share #117 Posted November 22, 2015 Why? The test is performd at roughly 50 focal length at f/ 5.6, would you call that close distance? p.s. there is one point I can agreee, if you focus to the corners the result will be very different: the center is blured..... Well, you are right that is not that close distance. But I don't know what do you want to hear? Yes, the Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature. Just like Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has, yet it remains my favourite 50mm lens of all time. Does it make it worse a lens than the Q's Lux 28/1.7? Absolutely no, in my opinion. No lens is perfect. The Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature, while Summilux 28/1.7 has the heavy distortion (corrected in RAW files where corners tend to degrade corners). But I still think the Sonnar 35/2 is still possibly the best 35mm lens I ever seen. At f/8 to f/11 when focused at infinity I never seen a unsharp image. I still think the choice between Q or RX1 II should be made based on focal lenght preference, and not on a studio test like this one. Nor I would make the choice based on the company logo (Sony vs Leica). But that is just me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted November 22, 2015 Share #118 Posted November 22, 2015 Well, you are right that is not that close distance. But I don't know what do you want to hear? Yes, the Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature. Just like Summilux-M 50mm ASPH has, yet it remains my favourite 50mm lens of all time. Does it make it worse a lens than the Q's Lux 28/1.7? Absolutely no, in my opinion. No lens is perfect. The Sonnar 35/2 has some field curvature, while Summilux 28/1.7 has the heavy distortion (corrected in RAW files where corners tend to degrade corners). But I still think the Sonnar 35/2 is still possibly the best 35mm lens I ever seen. At f/8 to f/11 when focused at infinity I never seen a unsharp image. I still think the choice between Q or RX1 II should be made based on focal lenght preference, and not on a studio test like this one. Nor I would make the choice based on the company logo (Sony vs Leica). But that is just me I completely agree, I would not make the choice based on the logo, the preferecne of focal length (28 versus 35mm) is even more important . In practice, for a digital camera filed curvature is a much more serious issue than distorsion because distorsion can be corrected by software. Anyhow, I think the RXii does not benefit to much from the new 42 Mpixel sensor. For Leica Q it migh be different, here I would see a reald advantage, you have more pixel for cropping, e.g. 50 mm would give 13 Mpixel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted November 23, 2015 Share #119 Posted November 23, 2015 I still don't see how the field curvature in the DPR test (which is present in 99% of wide-angle lenses) is a real world issue, unless you shoot brick walls or fine arts at close range (which you should be shooting with a telephoto lens anyway) It is well documented that the RX1 has sharper corners than the Q at infinity, and the Q is sharper in the center. I have both cameras, and honestly, both have very sharp lenses. This test is pointless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgm Posted November 23, 2015 Share #120 Posted November 23, 2015 I still don't see how the field curvature in the DPR test (which is present in 99% of wide-angle lenses) is a real world issue, unless you shoot brick walls or fine arts at close range (which you should be shooting with a telephoto lens anyway) It is well documented that the RX1 has sharper corners than the Q at infinity, and the Q is sharper in the center. I have both cameras, and honestly, both have very sharp lenses. This test is pointless. I think you didn't got the point. All shots from the dpreview test scene are shot INDEPENDTLY of focal length at rougly 50 focal length distances, at least for full frame. So if a lens shows field curvature in the test scene, it will show field curvature at infinity, the corrction at 50 focal lengths is identical with infiinity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.