Jump to content

Q2 - "Throw Away" Lens Assembly?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It is also one of the reasons that for instance SL and TL lenses outperform their M equivalents. (Except for the size bit, but that has a different rationale) 

Jaapv, I understand SL lens outperform M lens since they are not limited by size contraints, and Karbe had remarked they are of a higher order, but could you explain why the TL lens also outperform M lenses? Is it because size constraint factor aswell as the software corrections you mentioned? I guess apart from the inherent AFMF issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to, given the smaller sensor size. The image will be magnified more, which will make flaws more visible. Fortunately for M lenses, the weaker parts will be cut off, making the “better”. Note that TL lenses are relatively large as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when well known reviewers talk of "massive levels of optical distortion"  and "extreme barrel distortion" is that the actual end result of Q/Q2 images or is that not even noticed after in camera corrections?

If anyone knows the answer that is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2020 at 8:37 AM, steve 1959 said:

Thanks,so your saying the camera body makes corrections to the lens to compensate for what otherwise would be poor performance?

But that happens on interchangeable lens cameras as well i believe but i suppose your saying much more so on a fixed lens camera.

Yes. That's why it is so cheap. It isn't that you are getting a free camera on the back of an amazing Leica 28mm lens, you are paying for a camera that will cope with a cheap, small lens :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2020 at 8:59 AM, jaapv said:

Sorry, you really don't understand lens design.
Very simply said it means correcting aberrations which will create aberrations of the next order, which must be corrected by the next element and so forth until one arrives at the level of correction desired.   
The lens on the Q is a hybrid design, which corrects most optical errors better than any purely glass lens ever could in the optical part, shifting the residual aberrations into distortion (and possibly CA)  which can be controlled by digital means, actually better than by optical means, resulting in a lens that is better corrected, smaller, and more affordable than any purely optical lens ever could be. The price for that is that the sensor and processing hardware have actually become an integral part of the lens. Which also means that you cannot judge the optical part of the lens alone. It would be tantamount to removing one or more elements from an M lens and claiming the remaining bit is crap.

It is also one of the reasons that for instance SL and TL lenses outperform their M equivalents. (Except for the size bit, but that has a different rationale) The same situation exists for virtually all mainstream camera brands.

What you are saying is analogous to claiming your car has crap steering because it has power steering, and you wouldn't expect it to turn a corner on the mechanical part alone.

Er, I really do. You  just said what I said, using more words! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/6/2020 at 4:35 PM, AndrewDD said:

Yes. That's why it is so cheap. It isn't that you are getting a free camera on the back of an amazing Leica 28mm lens, you are paying for a camera that will cope with a cheap, small lens :)

It is far for being a cheap lens. 
But you know what ? No need to convinced you.

Only fools bought the third most sold Leica cameras of all time (after M3 and M6) We are just too blind to understand that the splendid IQ of Q/Q2 is just an illusion of our mind. 
For me only results count, whatever needs to done to achieve it, is not of my concern. 
I just enjoyed my Q and now my Q2. I will continue to use it. Even if it is just a 26mm with a bigger than full frame sensor cut down to 28mm full frame, mixed with distortion corrections. 
 

Actually it is way better than made in Japan TL lenses which are correcting distortions and vignette by software without the luxury to throw away the bad part. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way Sigma with its newest and smaller DG DN lenses, has decided to let software correct distortion, CA and vignetting. 
So no need for lots of elements, no need for APO tech, no need to make glasses bigger to avoid vignette = way smaller and lighter lenses. 
 

If you want 100% perfect lenses : APO-Summicron-SL line exists. 
M lenses are not perfect, they required colour correction (Italian flag), corner sharpening and vignetting software correction. 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2020 at 10:43 PM, jaapv said:

They have to, given the smaller sensor size. The image will be magnified more, which will make flaws more visible. Fortunately for M lenses, the weaker parts will be cut off, making the “better”. Note that TL lenses are relatively large as well. 

Thanks for that. I had rewatched Karbes' presentation on lenses, which he mention the design targets for aspc was higher than the classical  M lens

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

On 9/3/2020 at 12:57 PM, AndrewDD said:

I think there is some serious hysteria going on here.

Leica being unable to change a sensor on the M9 because they are no longer manufactured, 9 years after they were made, is scarcely a "throw away society".

As for the Q/Q2, the whole point is that it is a fixed lens. Its a crap lens, which the camera can compensate for as they are made as a single unit. You wouldn't want that lens on another camera. It will last until it breaks, and there is a good chance Leica will be able to repair it for 10 years or so. Calm down, that's as good as you are going to get.

The lens is garbage because it was designed with software correction in mind? Really? Then I recommend getting ready for a lot of garbage lenses from all sorts of manufacturers in the future.

Incorporating software corrections allows lens designers to make smaller, lighter lenses that, ultimately, produce excellent pictures across the (corrected) frame. Tell me, what is the difference between fixing lateral chromatic aberration with code or with another lens element? How is it better to fix distortion with glass rather than software? I care about the image, not about what tool the engineer chose to use in solving a problem. If software can address an optical issue as effectively as glass and leave me with a smaller, lighter, less expensive camera that is a good thing, yes? Hardly a “crap” design.

  • Like 6
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...