Leica Perspective Control for Leica S3

[Leica Land]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dose anybody know in theory, Is it possible for Leica S3 to be updated with the similar firmware for Perspective Control similar to Leica M10R?

Thank you

[LeicaR10]

Leica Land,   I sent you a personal message to answer your question. Welcome to the forum.  r/ Mark

[mgrayson3]

There is no mathematical objection. The S has an orientation sensor that displays in Live View. That, and knowing the lens focal length, is all you need *in theory* to compute the corrected view. There may be engineering problems - the processor isn't set up for it or the orientation sensor isn't accurate enough - but @LeicaR10 isn't telling the rest of us 🙂, and I don't know.

Edited August 27, 2021 by mgrayson3

[helged]

Sorry for the question, but nevertheless: Can someone enlighten me on advantages of in-body vs pp perspective control? As the question indicates, perspective control hasn't been an obstacle for me, but I am happy to learn what I miss... 

Edited August 27, 2021 by helged

[mgrayson3]

25 minutes ago, helged said:

Sorry for the question, but nevertheless: Can someone enlighten me on advantages of in-body vs pp perspective control? As the question indicates, perspective control hasn't been an obstacle for me, but I am happy to learn what I miss... 

When I had a Hassy X1D and 21mm lens, I did a lot of corrected architecture. The problem is that the lower part of the frame will get MUCH narrower. You have to follow the converging lines that you want to be in the final image all the way to the bottom and make sure they are still in the frame. This is not impossible, but it requires conscious thought on each shot. I suppose it would get automatic with frequent use, but an in-camera display of the resulting crop would be quite helpful.

Then there's the "what if there are no verticals to use for correction in post?" problem. In that case, I suppose it's up to the photographer to  adjust until it looks good, but having the camera autocorrect would be the "right" starting point.

Edited August 27, 2021 by mgrayson3

[helged]

31 minutes ago, mgrayson3 said:

When I had a Hassy X1D and 21mm lens, I did a lot of corrected architecture. The problem is that the lower part of the frame will get MUCH narrower. You have to follow the converging lines that you want to be in the final image all the way to the bottom and make sure they are still in the frame. This is not impossible, but it requires conscious thought on each shot. I suppose it would get automatic with frequent use, but an in-camera display of the resulting crop would be quite helpful.

Then there's the "what if there are no verticals to use for correction in post?" problem. In that case, I suppose it's up to the photographer to  adjust until it looks good, but having the camera autocorrect would be the "right" starting point.

Thanks, much appreciated! 

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does Leica's in-body correction typically crop more/same/less of the image, compared to merely doing perspective control in post processing?

In other words, is the dimension (and hence pixel resolution) of the resultant image the same via in-body vs post processing technique?

 

[mgrayson3]

4 hours ago, helged said:

Thanks, much appreciated! 

This is a good example, which I've posted before. To decide what will remain in the final image, you first have to choose the bottom edge of the final image, which may be higher than the bottom of the original frame. In this image, I raised it closer to the walkers' feet. From where this bottom edge intersects the sides, that tells you which converging "vertical" lines will be the left and right edges of the final image. I clipped a bit more off the right to avoid the yellow sign, but you can trace the geometry.

Actually, if the auto-correct decides that the bottom of the frame is the bottom of the image, it will give you a narrower final correction. I suppose that means that you have to choose the bottom edge carefully before pushing the shutter button.

 

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 August 27, 2021 by mgrayson3

[Jon Warwick]

Thanks for posting your example.

I have always used a more standard lens than your very wide angle example, and as a result I’d typically be stood further back up the street than where you are here ….so typically I’m needing less extreme correction in post than your wide angle lens might demand.

Regardless, I’m often very impressed by just how little image quality is lost when i do vertical corrections in ACR …..I have scrutinised some of my original (uncorrected) files against their vertically corrected versions, and it’s barely any loss of quality, maybe just needing a hint of extra sharpening needed to compensate for the correction.

As a 5x4 user constantly using front rise, I used to assume I’d need a tech camera to get to the quality of what I wanted, but I’m sufficiently impressed by what I can do in post processing to not go down that avenue now, even if in-camera (tech cam or tilt shift lens) is much better for visualising the final image.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[Leica Land]

10 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

This is a good example, which I've posted before. To decide what will remain in the final image, you first have to choose the bottom edge of the final image, which may be higher than the bottom of the original frame. In this image, I raised it closer to the walkers' feet. From where this bottom edge intersects the sides, that tells you which converging "vertical" lines will be the left and right edges of the final image. I clipped a bit more off the right to avoid the yellow sign, but you can trace the geometry.

Actually, if the auto-correct decides that the bottom of the frame is the bottom of the image, it will give you a narrower final correction. I suppose that means that you have to choose the bottom edge carefully before pushing the shutter button.

 

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!

 

Thanks for the tips

[Jon Warwick]

Just as an aside because we are talking about perspective control, Fuji said today it’s added a tilt shift (apparently wide angle) to its GFX lens roadmap. If it appears as a wide angle, I can’t think of any similar tilt shifts elsewhere for medium format digital? https://www.fujifilm.com/jp/en/news/hq/6850
 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think it has mostly been handled by technical cameras or adapting 35mm shift lenses...

Edited September 2, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[mgrayson3]

Laowa makes a shift lens with a GF mount. It is 15mm (!), and not particularly sharp. Their 17mm is much better. These are insanely wide. Those are actual focal lengths, not "FF equivalent".

[xiaubauu2009]

On 8/28/2021 at 1:46 AM, mgrayson3 said:

This is a good example, which I've posted before. To decide what will remain in the final image, you first have to choose the bottom edge of the final image, which may be higher than the bottom of the original frame. In this image, I raised it closer to the walkers' feet. From where this bottom edge intersects the sides, that tells you which converging "vertical" lines will be the left and right edges of the final image. I clipped a bit more off the right to avoid the yellow sign, but you can trace the geometry.

Actually, if the auto-correct decides that the bottom of the frame is the bottom of the image, it will give you a narrower final correction. I suppose that means that you have to choose the bottom edge carefully before pushing the shutter button.

 

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!

 

Sweet photo!

[xiaubauu2009]

11 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

Just as an aside because we are talking about perspective control, Fuji said today it’s added a tilt shift (apparently wide angle) to its GFX lens roadmap. If it appears as a wide angle, I can’t think of any similar tilt shifts elsewhere for medium format digital? https://www.fujifilm.com/jp/en/news/hq/6850
 

30mm tilt shift with a 105mm filter thread... not AF though, pity.

[Jon Warwick]

Autofocus would be nice, simply for the convenience of auto focus stacking on the GFX (landscapes, architecture), although I could still just do it manually. From images floating around on the internet of this lens, if they’re credible, this tilt-shift looks a beast of a lens as you’d expect to cover a medium format digital sensor!

[xiaubauu2009]

On 9/3/2021 at 8:29 PM, Jon Warwick said:

Autofocus would be nice, simply for the convenience of auto focus stacking on the GFX (landscapes, architecture), although I could still just do it manually. From images floating around on the internet of this lens, if they’re credible, this tilt-shift looks a beast of a lens as you’d expect to cover a medium format digital sensor!

Ya, 105mm filter... good luck filtering this beast while avoiding vignette

[Stuart Richardson]

On 9/3/2021 at 12:29 PM, Jon Warwick said:

Autofocus would be nice, simply for the convenience of auto focus stacking on the GFX (landscapes, architecture), although I could still just do it manually. From images floating around on the internet of this lens, if they’re credible, this tilt-shift looks a beast of a lens as you’d expect to cover a medium format digital sensor!

I am not sure you necessarily need a huge lens for coverage...my Fuji 450mm f12.5 has a 52mm filter thread and covers 11x14"...nearly 16x20. To be honest, I am not sure why these lenses need to be so huge on mirrorless. Minuscule and reasonably fast lenses cover 4x5, and MFD tech camera lenses are also tiny. I wonder why it has to be a 105mm filter?

[mgrayson3]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure you necessarily need a huge lens for coverage...my Fuji 450mm f12.5 has a 52mm filter thread and covers 11x14"...nearly 16x20. To be honest, I am not sure why these lenses need to be so huge on mirrorless. Minuscule and reasonably fast lenses cover 4x5, and MFD tech camera lenses are also tiny. I wonder why it has to be a 105mm filter?

Digital sensors like telecentric lenses. Shift lenses, especially, benefit  from light rays coming in nearly horizontal, otherwise micro lenses will do their jobs badly - or at least asymmetrically. Telecentric lenses tend to have large front elements. Just a guess.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[xiaubauu2009]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure you necessarily need a huge lens for coverage...my Fuji 450mm f12.5 has a 52mm filter thread and covers 11x14"...nearly 16x20. To be honest, I am not sure why these lenses need to be so huge on mirrorless. Minuscule and reasonably fast lenses cover 4x5, and MFD tech camera lenses are also tiny. I wonder why it has to be a 105mm filter?

Digital sensor is different from film...