Controversy about Q3 lens

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, M11 for me said:

I think that it is rather the missing Autofocus. 

It was mentioned here and there that some people would get an M if it had an EVF instead of an RF. Sacrilege, I know!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[liggy]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

It was mentioned here and there that some people would get an M if it had an EVF instead of an RF. Sacrilege, I know!

Not trying to provoke the ire of any M users here but after experiencing the blackout free 9.44M dot A1 EVF - I would be one of those folks that would consider a M if it replaced the RF with that EVF. <ducks>

[city of bristol]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

The 28mm lux found on the Q would be (in ABSOLUTE TERMS, only holding the optical module in hand) quite surprisingly strange and fisheye like without its in-camera software corrections if somehow adapted to any other digital camera sans processing.

But packaged into a Leica Q it is a superb, polished and tweaked combo that produces awesome photos.

I like to call the Q lens "summilumix".
 

 

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your "put down" comment on the Q lens?  also what part do panasonic play in the M cameras and SL series? Maybe with the possible sony sensor tech in the M 11 we should  call it the M sony?  Quite a catchy name i think.

[jmschuh]

 

 

 

The difference between an M lens and a lens on a digital camera that will never be used with film is actually quite simple: an M optic must be completely optically corrected, since it must also be used on film cameras. Compromises in optical design have to be accepted because of size, type of lens mount, etc. Therefore, some lenses are better at the same focal length on the SL because the optics designer has more freedom here due to the size.

Optics that are only used on a digital camera are usually not completely optically corrected. In these cases, the focus is limited to optical errors that have to be corrected optically only. Errors that can just as well be corrected digitally are left to a certain extent in the optical calculation. This usually leads to a simpler optical design and fewer compromises in the optical calculation, because the correction of a single optical error usually does not happen without an effect on other optical errors. 

Digitally corrected errors on the other hand, have little effect on other errors to be digitally corrected and therefore this solution is usually no worse in the end result, but makes sure that optical designs are much less expensive.

Distortion, vignetting and lateral chromatic aberration can be corrected digitally, but coma, astigmatism, field curvature, spherical aberration and longitudinal chromatic aberration can only be corrected optically.

 

 

 

[Dean S]

One must distinguish between "image quality" and a "quality image." They are not necessarily the same.  A technically "excellent" image may be garbage and an image that is "soft" in the corners may be fantastic. I think we get caught up on the "technical" stuff and forget about the subject, composition, lighting, etc. A pin-sharp photo of a boring subject is still boring! ;0)

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, Dean S said:

One must distinguish between "image quality" and a "quality image." They are not necessarily the same.  A technically "excellent" image may be garbage and an image that is "soft" in the corners may be fantastic. I think we get caught up on the "technical" stuff and forget about the subject, composition, lighting, etc. A pin-sharp photo of a boring subject is still boring! ;0)

They are two different topics and warrant independent discussions. IMO, one should not belittle technical discussion because aesthetic view matters as well.

Edited August 15, 2023 by SrMi

[city of bristol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Did you even read what I wrote? Where did you see me mention Panasonic and M/SL cameras in the same sentence?
(Panasonic does play a role in SL cameras though, by forming the joint L-Mount Alliance).
Also, where am I “putting down” the Q lens? I sang nothing but praise for the little thing, but (as @SrMi and @adan already stated in this thread) this lens really needs computational processing (software distortion control) to become what you see in the final result. That’s just a fact even the hardest fanboi has to accept.

I could have swore you called the Q lens a " summilumix" which is a massive put down in my view but maybe you simply spelt it wrong?

The software distortion thing is irrelevant in my view.

[Sohail]

12 hours ago, Dean S said:

One must distinguish between "image quality" and a "quality image." They are not necessarily the same.  A technically "excellent" image may be garbage and an image that is "soft" in the corners may be fantastic. I think we get caught up on the "technical" stuff and forget about the subject, composition, lighting, etc. A pin-sharp photo of a boring subject is still boring! ;0)

It's a strange argument. If you don't care about such things as software-induced softness in the corners, why buy a $6000 Leica camera? Why not focus on making "quality images" with a Fuji APS-C camera or Micro-Four Thirds camera like the Olympus EM5 like many excellent photographers? 

[jmschuh]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Sohail:

It's a strange argument. If you don't care about such things as software-induced softness in the corners, why buy a $6000 Leica camera? Why not focus on making "quality images" with a Fuji APS-C camera or Micro-Four Thirds camera like the Olympus EM5 like many excellent photographers? 

 

When a photo doesn't look good, the question remains in the back of your mind: Was it perhaps due to the (too small) sensor?

But if you have a large sensor you can be sure: The reason can only be found in the back of the camera.

 

[Simone_DF]

40 minutes ago, jmschuh said:

 

When a photo doesn't look good, the question remains in the back of your mind: Was it perhaps due to the (too small) sensor?

But if you have a large sensor you can be sure: The reason can only be found in the back of the camera.

 

Then a Canon, Nikon or Sony should be more than enough

[jmschuh]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Simone_DF:

Then a Canon, Nikon or Sony should be more than enough

For a good photo for sure. But not for the heart and the soul. 😉 

[Simone_DF]

13 minutes ago, jmschuh said:

For a good photo for sure. But not for the heart and the soul. 😉 

I don’t know. My heart sure is happy to spend 2k instead of 6k 😆

[Viewfinder_vandals]

@TDE-Photo I haven’t notice that in my use…. 
 

here you have the answer. 
but today Its easier to Discuss things That no one ever care about than to go out and take pictures. 

[MikeD70]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:59 AM, bobtodrick said:

Great answer.

I still use the original Q.  Just finished an exhibit at a local gallery and have self published two books.  At the current state of print technology (both prints and books) most lenses these days are fine.

IMO it’s only the pixel peepers that worry.  And they’ve always been around.  I remember in the ‘old days’ they would photograph the USAF (United States Air Force) test pattern to count the lines per inch resolution.  I always laughed at this…I have never run into one of those test targets on my daily travels 😂.  But if I did I guess it would be nice to know I had a lens that could resolve it all.

I'll second that.  In the 40+years I shot professionally; I can also say for certain that I never ran into any of those patterns either.  But then, I was lucky, I never had a lens that I had to return as a bad copy.  If it looks good, use it. (Up to billboard size.)

[Sohail]

2 hours ago, jmschuh said:

When a photo doesn't look good, the question remains in the back of your mind: Was it perhaps due to the (too small) sensor?

But if you have a large sensor you can be sure: The reason can only be found in the back of the camera.

"A bad workman always blames his tools". It's also true of photography. Sensor size is no guarantee of great photos. 

[Opaea]

The question is not this one. If it was , I should keep eternally my previous camera (Fujifilm xe4) wich really fit to me. I was looking for a similar compactness associated to a best quality. The q3 gave me that except for very few landscapes. Just have to be aware of that 

[pcgarner]

On 8/14/2023 at 5:23 AM, M11 for me said:

I think that it is rather the missing Autofocus. 

And the counter to that is that for decades the finest photographers in the world praised and relied on the Leica RF. 

[Simone_DF]

18 hours ago, pcgarner said:

And the counter to that is that for decades the finest photographers in the world praised and relied on the Leica RF. 

People have been using horses for over 2000 years, that doesn’t mean they are better than a car. Just different. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Stuart Richardson]

I find it interesting how quickly these things devolve into a zero sum game. Either technical things do not matter at all and it is really just the art (in which case why a Q3 and not a phone or Holga?). Or that because "I have been doing this forever and it does not matter to me, therefore it does not matter for anyone". Of course there is the technical side that says that since there is one pixel out of alignment, it completely invalidates the utility of the camera. I feel like I am often in the middle of these discussions because I am both a practicing artist as well as a printer, teacher and technician. The reason these discussions come up is that these things are all on a spectrum. I sometimes find it kind of frustrating how these discussions develop. The Q3 is a remarkable camera that can do a large number of photographic tasks with great prowess, and the technical specs and precision would be miraculous going back just a few years. That said, it is not perfect, and there are real deficiencies in comparison to the best available options elsewhere, whether that be in cameras with better AF, or in cameras with better optics. What you do as a photographer and what you value are going to be the guiding lights as to whether it is the camera for you, but I think it is silly to try to universalize that statement.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[pcgarner]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I find it interesting how quickly these things devolve into a zero sum game. Either technical things do not matter at all and it is really just the art (in which case why a Q3 and not a phone or Holga?). Or that because "I have been doing this forever and it does not matter to me, therefore it does not matter for anyone". Of course there is the technical side that says that since there is one pixel out of alignment, it completely invalidates the utility of the camera. The reason these discussions come up is that these things are all on a spectrum. I sometimes find it kind of frustrating how these discussions develop. The Q3 is a remarkable camera that can do a large number of photographic tasks with great prowess, and the technical specs and precision would be miraculous going back just a few years. That said, it is not perfect, and there are real deficiencies in comparison to the best available options elsewhere, whether that be in cameras with better AF, or in cameras with better optics. What you do as a photographer and what you value are going to be the guiding lights as to whether it is the camera for you, but I think it is silly to try to universalize that statement.

Nicely summarized.